Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
83-2048
MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY 8s KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CHARLES P. REIDY, III DANIEL J. GRIFFIN, JR. PAUL R KEANE PAUL M McTAGUE EDWARD F MAHONEY DOUGLAS A. ROBERTSON' KEVIN C. REIDY STEPHEN M O'SHEA JENNIFER E. KOGAN ROBERT E. BURGESS' SARAH ANN GREENHALGH JOAN F. RENEHAN JENNIFER A. CREEDON +! DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE' KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANIE M. GAZDA ! SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED Case Administrator -rarrnLMh'Cn'sLion WWW.MJHMKZQ -s , SEP 2 ZII15 RrCEIVED Office Of Appeals and Dispute Resolution Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street, 2Dd Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ali R. Bigdeliazari Elaine R. Bigdeliazari 18 Juniper Road Medway, Massachusetts 02053 MassDEP 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 September 28, 2016 SENIOR COUNSEL RAYMOND J. KENNEY, JR EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-1988) HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1938-1999) CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1985) • ALSO ADMITTED IN CA ! ALSO ADMITTED IN CT ALSO ADMITTED IN NH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RI Town of Yarmouth Conservation Commission Ed Hoopes, Chairman 1146 Route 28 Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664-4492 Michael and Janet Durkin 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard West Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02673 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SUPERSEDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS AFFIRMATION DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 PURSUANT TO M.G.L.c. 30A §10 and 310 CMR 10.04 CLAIM FOR ADJUDICATORY APPEAL A. DEP FILE #/APPLICANT/PROJECT ADDRESS DEP File No. SE 83-2048 APPLICANT: Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 18 Juniper Road, Medway, MA 02053 PROJECT ADDRESS: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02673 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, McCARTHY & KENNEY B. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PARTY FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street, 71h Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (P) (617) 227-3240 (F) (617) 227-3346 Email: drobertsongmmmk.com Counsel for Michael Durkin and Janet Durkin, Aggrieved Persons And Parties Filing Notice of Appeal C. APPEAL BY 10 RESIDENTS Not applicable. D. AGGRIEVED PERSONS The aggrieved persons, Michael Durkin and Janet Durkin own the abutting property at 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, West Yarmouth, participated in the January 7, 2016 public hearing before the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, filed a request for superseding order of conditions dated January 25, 2016 (copy attached), participated in the February 24, 2016 site meeting and submitted the March 8, 2016 supplemental memorandum in support of their request for superseding order of conditions. These aggrieved persons now appeal the superseding Order of Conditions on Affirmation, dated September 16, 2016, the Reviewable Decision, per 310 CMR 10.04. E) INTERESTED PARTIES Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari Owners of 188 Berry Avenue Mailing Address: 18 Juniper Road, Medway, MA 02053 0) MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY F) CONCISE STATEMENT OF DEPARTMENT'S ERRORS1 The department's September 16, 2016 affirmation of the Yarmouth Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions dated January 15, 2016 contains no analysis or discussion of why/how the proposed project will not adversely affect the stability of the Coastal Bank. The Department did not discuss or address the fact that the entire project area is land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ("LSCSF") and did not discuss or address how the proposed project adding 2,904 feet of new structures to an existing home, which already sits on the edge of the top of the Coastal Bank, will affect erosion of the Coastal Bank and flooding of the subject property, 188 Berry Avenue, and the aggrieved party's abutting property, at 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, during expected and anticipated flooding events, for designated LSCSF, by the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") map, Pan 588, Barnstable County, dated July 16, 2014. The Department failed to discuss or address that 310 CMR 10.21 requires that because the proposed project is on LSCSF, the proposed work must "protect these characteristics and resources to the maximum extent permissible under M.G.L.c. 131 §40. The Department failed to discuss or address how the proposed project would impact the LSCSF, the land's ability to retain/absorb water during storm flowage events, how the enlarged building foot print, swimming pool, and four car garage, would channel storm water onto abutting properties, including the Durkin's property, and so failed to address whether and how the proposed project would negatively impact the protected interests of flood control, storm damage prevention, prevention of pollution and protection of wild life habitat, enumerated in 310 CMR 10.01 (2). ' The Department failed to address or discuss the aggrieved parties' arguments set forth in the Request for Superseding Order or Conditions, and the aggrieved parties' supplemental submission of March 8, 2016 in support of their request for superseding order of conditions, and all these arguments are incorporated herein by reference. 3 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, McCARTHY & KENNEY The Department failed to address or discuss the applicant's failure to properly locate the "toe" of the Coastal Bank, due to the applicant's failure to comply with DEP Wetlands Program Policy 92-1, so without proper location of the "toe", the "top" of the Coastal Bank could not be properly located. Without proper location of the Coastal Bank, the Department could not reasonably determine whether the proposed project would harm the Coastal Bank, particularly during coastal storm flowage events. The Department did not mention or discuss any engineering report, registered professional engineer's report, or report of someone with storm water flowage/ocean hydrology experience, in its September 16, 2016 affirmation. The applicant did not submit any such report concerning how the proposed project will affect storm water movement, runoff, absorption, flooding, during a 100 year storm. Without such information, the Department could not have made an informed decision about whether the interests of M.G.L.c. 131, §40, set out in 310 CMR 10.01(2), were properly protected. The Department's September 16, 2016 affirmation did not discuss or address the "protection of Wildlife Habitat" interest of 310 CMR 10.01(2), specifically the wild water fowl feeding, over wintering and roosting habitat on the Coastal Bank, as discussed in the February 19, 2016 report of C. Diane Boretos, PSW, submitted to James Mahala at the February 24, 2016 site visit, copy enclosed with the aggrieved parties supplemental submission of March 8, 2016, and the roosting habitat observed and documented by Ms. Boretos, atop the Coastal Bank. The applicant proposes to cut down pre-existing coastal vegetation, spread grass seed, erect a fence on the Coastal Bank, and mow the Coastal Bank. This will destroy the habitat. The Department did not address this issue. 0 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY The Department failed to address the existence of the prior superseding order of conditions, dated November 18, 1994, SE File No. 83-1286 (copy attached to March 8, 2016 supplemental submission) which requires the lowest floor elevation to be above the base flood elevation ("BFE"). The current BFE is 11.4 feet, per 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2) and FEMA 480, February 2005, at pp. 4-6, 5-27, see the enclosed March 8, 2016 submission at Pg. 2. The proposed project will be below 11.4 feet. Indeed, it has a full basement. Compliance with FEMA 480, since it is a substantially improved structure, will require filling the basement, so that oil, gas, heating systems and stored fluids, do not float onto the Durkin's property during coastal storm flowage events, and to prevent substantial property damage to the subject property. The Department has not addressed FEMA 480, FEMAP-758, May 2010 or the current BFE of 11.4 in its September 16, 2016 affirmation. The subject property fronts on Lewis Bay, an "estuary", protected by G.Lc. 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.02(1)(A). The subject property has a septic system and leaching field which will be underwater during a 100 storm, and the most recent field measurement for the leaching field elevation puts it only three feet from the ground water elevation, in violation of 310 CMR 15.212-15.215 which requires a 4-5 foot separation from ground water. (See March 8, 2016 submission). The Department did not address the septic/leaching condition at the subject property, either under usual conditions, or under storm conditions, despite "pollution" being a protected interest under Ch. 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.01(2) and the subject property fronting on Lewis Bay, an estuary protected by 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a). The Department should have made a determination pursuant to Policy BRP/DWM/PEP P995 (nitrogen loading limitations- system upgrades in sensitive areas). (see 310 CMR 15.214) and ordered that the subject property employ a "tight tank" or above ground system, in lieu of a septic system and leaching field. MARTIN, MAGNUSON, McCARTHY & KENNEY The subject property is in a special flood hazard area ("SFHA") as mapped by FEMA/FIRM MAP 25001 C0588J, effective July 16, 2014, and 310 CMR 10.04 identifies a SFHA as one of the "Resource Areas" subject to coastal storm flowage, which must be protected. Under 44 CFR 59, a "development permit" is required to renovate and add to buildings in a SFHA. No development permit was ever issued for this project. FEMA 480 at pp. 5-21 requires that a "development must not increase the flood hazard on other properties", consistent with 310 CMR 10.01(2) identifying "flood control" and "storm damage prevention" as interests to be protected by the Department. Yet, the Department's September 16, 2016 affirmation does not make any determination whether the development will increase flooding on the Durkin's abutting property. Moreover, FEMA 480 at pg. 5-23 requires a "no rise" certificate, from a registered professional engineer, certifying that the proposed project will not cause flood waters to rise during a coastal storm flowage event. However, neither the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, nor the Department, ever required the applicant to submit a "no rise" certificate. The Department's failure to require the applicant to submit the "development permit" and "no rise" certificate, required by federal law, was an error. Additionally, M.G.L.c. 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.05 (4)(e) require, prior to filing a Notice of Intent, that permits be obtained, which are "feasible to obtain." See Conservation Commission of Brockton v. Department of Environmental Protection, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 601, 608 (2012). The site plan submitted with the NOI states the septic system location is uncertain and that it may be relocated. The shown leaching area is under land at elevation 10 and 11. However, the location of the existing system is clearly shown on the June 14, 1994 plan. (copy attached to March 8, 2016 submission). That plan shows a 5.28' separation of the septic system from ground water, assuming the ground water is at 120". 31 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY A percolation test on August 19, 2010 on the adjacent landward property (15 Lewis Bay Boulevard) found the ground water elevation at 114". (copy enclosed with March 8, 2016 submission). The September 2, 2014 Title 5 Certificate, at pg. 16, (copy enclosed), found the bottom of the leaching field at 6.5'. The presumed ground water elevation was 9.0' with a 2.2' adjustment. The most recent measurement, at 114", or 9.51, puts the current leaching field 3' from the ground water. This violates Title 5. Before submitting the NOI, no septic permit was sought from the Yarmouth Health Department. Such a permit, showing the location and size of the system suitable for the proposed project, or the proposed reuse of the existing system, should have been obtained prior to NOI. 310 CMR 15.00 governs, and 310 CMR 15.212-15.215 dictates elevating tanks above flood ways where feasible, achieving 4-5 foot separation from ground water where elevation is not feasible, and ensuring septic waste does not pollute an adjacent Estuary, here, Lewis Bay. If ground water is at 114" below the existing system, it is too low to reuse. Given the "substantial improvement" of the subject structure, the septic system must be fully complaint with current regulations. Given the surface elevation, location of the subsurface system, required separation to ground water, and the ground water elevation, it is quizzical how an underground system could be approved for 188 Berry Avenue. The NOI acted on by the Commission provides no assurance to an abutter, like the Durkins, that during the expected 100 year storm, the septic system for 188 Berry Avenue, presently under land with a surface elevation of 10-11, with seemingly three feet of separation from the subsurface ground water, will do anything other than leak, spreading septic waste onto the abutter's property and into the Estuary. This is unacceptable. Conspicuously absent from the NOI is any letter from a certified Hydrologist, stating the system will not leak during a 100 year storm, or that the system complies with the current requirements. 7 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY In addition, the aggrieved parties incorporate by reference the clear and concise statements set forth in the enclosed Request for Superseding Order of Conditions and the supplemental submission dated March 8, 2016, as all these issues were unaddressed by the Department's September 16, 2016 Affirmation. G) DEPARTMENT'S REVIEWABLE DECISION/CONSERVATION COMMISSION'S DECISION These decisions are enclosed. H) ATTESTATION OF NOTICE TO APPLICANT AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION The aggrieved parties, by their counsel, affirms the applicant and the Conservation Commission were served, by certified mail, with copies of this Notice of Appeal. I) MAJOR AND COMPLEX DESIGNATION Not applicable. REQUESTED RELIEF The aggrieved parties, Mr. and Mrs. Durkin, respectfully request that the DEP conduct an adjudicating hearing pursuant to M.G.L.c. 30A § 10 and make findings and rulings annulling the September 16, 2016 Superseding Order of Conditions Affirmation, annulling the January 15, 2016 Yarmouth Conservation Commission Order of Conditions and rejecting the proposed project described in the December 22, 2015 Notice of Intent. Douglas A. Robertson, BBO #552315 Attorney for Appealing/Aggrieved Parties, Michael Durkin And Janet Durkin Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street, 71h Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 227-3240 drobertsonkmmmk.com MARTIN, MAGNUSON, McCARTHY & KENNEY In addition, the aggrieved parties incorporate by reference the clear and concise statements set forth in the enclosed Request for Superseding Order of Conditions and the supplemental submission dated March 8, 2016, as all these issues were unaddressed by the Department's September 16, 2016 Affirmation. G) DEPARTMENT'S REVIEWABLE DECISION/CONSERVATION COMMISSION'S DECISION These decisions are enclosed. H) ATTESTATION OF NOTICE TO APPLICANT AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION The aggrieved parties, by their counsel, affirms the applicant and the Conservation Commission were served, by certified mail, with copies of this Notice of Appeal. I) MAJOR AND COMPLEX DESIGNATION Not applicable. REQUESTED RELIEF The aggrieved parties, Mr. and Mrs. Durkin, respectfully request that the DEP conduct an adjudicating hearing pursuant to M.G.L.c. 30A § 10 and make findings and rulings annulling the September 16, 2016 Superseding Order of Conditions Affirmation, annulling the January 15, 2016 Yarmouth Conservation Commission Order of Conditions and rejecting the proposed project described in the December 22, 2015 Notice of Intent. N k<5 ou as A. Robertson, BBO #552315 Attorney for Appealing/Aggrieved Parties, Michael Durkin And Janet Durkin Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street, 7th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (617) 227-3240 drobertsongmmmk.com REQUEST FOR SUPERSEDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS RE: DEP File# SE83-2048 LOCUS: 188 BERRY AVENUE West Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02673 ARGUMENT Pursuant to MGL c 131 § 40, Paragraph 19, and 310 CMR 10.07(a), The Abutters, Janet and Michael, Trustees of the Durkin Trust, Owners of the abutting property at 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, ("Mr. and Mrs. Durkin") request that The Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") issue a Superseding Order Of Conditions, annulling and replacing the Order of Conditions dated 1/15/16 ("1/15/16 Order") issued by The Yarmouth Conservation Commission ("Yarmouth Commission"), concerning the proposed work at 188 Berry Avenue ("Subject Property"). Mr. and Mrs. Durkin respectfully request that upon conducting a de novo review, the DEP issue a superseding Order disapproving the work proposed in the Notice of Intent, dated 12/21/15, ("NOI") filed with the Yarmouth Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Durkin make this request because the 1/15/16 Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c 131 § 40) and is inconsistent with the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00). Mr. and Mrs. Durkin clearly and concisely object to the 1/15/16 Order for the following reasons: The Subject Property is an area subject to protection under 131 §40 as set forth in 310 CMR 10.02(l)(a) and (d) because the land contains a coastal bank bordering on an estuary (Lewis Bay) and is land subject to coastal storm flowage ("LSCSF"). The most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency("FEMA") map, Panel 588, Barnstable County, dated 7/16/14, (full size and detail section enclosed) show the subject property has both VE(EL13) and AE(EL11) zones, and that the "limit of moderate wave action' area, at zone AE12, runs across the subject property just in front of the existing house structure. Because the NOI proposes to substantially enlarge the existing structure by 643 square feet (NOI site plan) as well as adding a new swimming pool and deck, new patios, and a new four car garage with living space and new bathrooms above the garage, totaling 2,904 square feet of new structures, and an enlarged septic system leaching into the ground, the applicant was required to file a NOI demonstrating to the Yarmouth Commission that the proposed work " will contribute to the protection of the interests identified in MGL c 131 §40 by complying with the general performance standards established by 310 CMR 10.00 for that area". 310 CMR 10.30 contains performance standards for coastal banks. 310 CMRI0.00 does not contain performance standards for LSCSF. Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.30, the Yarmouth Commission was required to make a written determination that the coastal bank was either, or both, "significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it supplies sediment to coastal beaches... the ability of the coastal bank to erode in response to wave action is critical to protection of that interest(s)" and/or make a determination that the "coastal bank is significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it is a vertical buffer to storm waters, the stability of the bank, i.e., the natural resistance of the bank to erosion caused by wind, and rain runoff, is critical to the protection of that interest(s)". 2 The Yarmouth Commission failed to comply with 310 CMR 10.30, by failing to make the required determinations, despite the FEMA map showing moderate wave action coming over the top of the identified coastal bank, and spreading throughout the LSCSF area. Absent specific performance requirements, 310 CMR 10.21 requires, for LSCSF, that the proposed work "protect these characteristics and resources to the maximum extent permissible under MGL c 131 § 40" and that the Yarmouth Commission "issue specific measures and requirements for each proposed project that will ensure the project is designed and carried out consistent with the required level of protection". The Yarmouth Commission's 1/15/16 Order fails to comply with 310 CMR 10.21. Furthermore, 310 CMR 10.30(4) prohibits work and structures within 100 feet of the top of a coastal bank that have " an adverse effect due to wave action on the movement of sediment from the coastal bank to coastal beaches or land subject to tidal action". The proposed project includes expanded structures, patios, a pool and pool deck, a pool pump shed, a four car garage, and new leaching fields, all in the LSCSF, and all within 100 feet of the top of the coastal bank. By altering the LSCSF, the ability of the LSCSF to absorb water is compromised, and the ability of movement of sediment toward the coastal beach is compromised. The NOI did not include an engineer's report, by a registered professional engineer, with storm water flowage/ocean hydrology experience, to inform the Yarmouth Commission as to the consequences of the proposed work, and whether the work would have an adverse effect on the absorption of storm water and the movement of sediment. The Yarmouth Commission violated 310 CMR 10.30(4) when it issued the 1/15/16 Order, without adequate credible expert information concerning the project's impact on the protection of the interests identified in MGL c 131 § 40 and 310 CMR 10.00. 2. MGL c 131 § 40 prohibits work on a coastal bank, or on LSCSF, except when the work is "maintaining, repairing or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging any existing lawfully located structure..." The NOI describes work which adds 643 square feet to the existing house. This is not permitted by MGL c 131 § 40. The NOI describes a new Olympic pool and new four car garage and new leaching areas, all within the LSCSF, and all within 100 feet of the top of the coastal bank ("Buffer Zone" per 310 CMR 10.02(b), subject to protection by 131 § 40). The proposed work is prohibited by MGL c 131 §40. The Yarmouth Commission, by issuing the 1/15/16 Order, allowing the project to proceed, violated MGL c 131 § 40. 3. MGL c 131 § 40 requires the NOI be served on abutters. It is axiomatic that the notice to abutters be reasonably calculated to inform the abutters of the potential adverse impacts of the project on the interests protected by MGL c 131 §40. In this case, the NOI made no mention of the 7/16/14 FEMA map showing the subject property and the abutter's property, was all LSCSF during 100 year storms, or that the limit of moderate wave action fell in the proposed work area and within the Buffer Zone, nor did the NOI comply with DEP Wetlands Program Policy 92-1 concerning the required specificity when identifying a coastal bank, nor did the NOI even mention the wild water fowl feeding, over wintering and roosting habitat on the coastal bank, the top of which is under the existing front 4 patio of the house. Policy 92-1 requires identification of the "toe" of the coastal bank, the identification of which of the seven established DEP "figures" of coastal banks best matches the subject property, and submission of plan cross sections showing the coastal bank at each meaningful elevation. This was not done and the required information was not available to the Yarmouth Commission before it voted to approve the project. Likewise, even though protection of "wild life habitat" is an express interest under MGL c 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.01(2), the Yarmouth Commission elected to reject the abutter's offer that Mrs. Durkin testify and show photographs of the roosting overwintering water fowl living on the coastal bank. The Yarmouth Commission violated MGL c 131 §40 by acting without considering or addressing the existence of roosting wild water fowl, the failure to comply with DEP Policy 92-1, resulting in the incomplete and inaccurate location of the coastal bank and inadequate notice to abutters, and by acting without considering or addressing the FEMA map showing moderate wave action and storm water flowage in the project area. 4. MGL c 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) require, prior to filing a NOI, an applicant shall apply for "all permits, variances and approvals required by local by-law with respect to the proposed activity" that are "feasible to obtain". See Conservation Commission of Brockton v Department of Environmental Protection, 81 Mass App Ct 601, 608(2012). 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) provides that approvals from local authorities of permits required for work on flood plains and wetlands are among the required permits to be obtained prior to filing for a NOI with the Conservation Commission. The Yarmouth Zoning By -Law, at 403.1 addresses building in Flood Zones A and V, which are the zones applicable to the subject property. At the 1/7/16 hearing, the applicant admitted a permit from the Yarmouth Board of Health would need to be obtained, concerning the expansion of the existing septic system and leaching fields. The NOI did not contain any engineering plans explaining how septic pipes and leaching fields would perform when the subject property was underwater during a 100 year storm. The Durkins submit the Yarmouth Conservation Commission violated 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) and MGL c 131 §40 when it voted on 1/7/16, and issued on 1/15/16 the Order of Conditions, without first requiring the applicant to obtain a Board of Health septic permit for the subject property. The Durkins further submit that the subject property should be required to comply with 310 CMR 15.00 (The State Environmental Code Regulating Septic Systems); and Policy BRP/DWM/PEP- P995 (Nitrogen Loading Limitations -System Upgrades In Sensitive Areas) (310 CMR 15.214) given the existing nitrogen overloading of Lewis Bay, reflected by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project report on Lewis Bay, copy enclosed. REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, Mr. and Mrs. Durkin, respectfully request that the DEP issue a Superseding Order of Conditions annulling the 1/15/16 Order of Conditions, and rejecting the proposed project described in the NOI. Respectfully submitted, /S/ Douglas A. Robertson BBO #552315 Attorney For Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of The Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, An Aggrieved Abutter Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 227-3240 dobertson@mmmk.com Dated: January 25, 2016 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number. Request for Departmental Action Fee 9Ea3-2nAR Transmittal Form Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information 1. Location of Project 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth 02673 a. Street Address b. City(rown, Zip #134R3 �n nn c, Check number d. Fee amount Person or party making request (if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): Name Ni-ehaer-and janet Durkin 1 5 Lewis Bay Bo u l .vard Mailing Address West Yarmouth MA n?F�3 City/Town State Zip Code Number fax Number (if applicable) I Applicant (as shown on Determination of Applicability (Form 2), Order of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4B), Order of Conditions (Form 5), Restoration Order of Conditions (Form 5A), or Notice of Non -Significance (Form 6)): Ali and Elaine _Bi�crdeliazari Name 18 Juniper Road Mailing Address Medway MA 02053 Cityrrown State Zip Code Phone Number 4. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for (check one): Fax Number (if applicable) [� Superseding Order of Conditions — Fee: $120.00 (single family house projects) or $245 (all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability — Fee: $120 ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation — Fee: $120 Send this form and check or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to. - Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 wetree.doc • rev 12/15114 Request for Departmental Ac ion Fee Transmittal Form • Pape 1 of 2 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT 1.AW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 A TELECOP:ER: (617) 227-3346CIIARL $E�IOR COUNSEL ES P. REIDY, InDAMEL; GRIFFM,IR. DANIE W WW.MMMK.COM RAYMOND 1. KENNEY, IR. PAUL R McTAKEAN M. E EDWARD F HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EDW F MAH —DUGLA F MOBFR7S EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-1988) HARD -DE MAGNUSON(1939.1999) EROBER.SON' KEVIN C. KEVIN C. RE1DY CLEWENT MCCAR:HY(1951-1995) STEPHEN M O'SHEA • ER c KCGAN . ALSO ADMITTEDI :N CA ROST,JENNI R09CRT. E BURGESS • I ALSO ADMITTED IN CT SARAH ANN GREENHALGH ALSO ADMITTED IN NH JOAN F RENEHAN ALSO ADMITTED IN RI JENNIFER A CREEDON tl DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E PRICE KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANE M. GA%DA ! Sent Via Email And First Class Mail Mr. Gregory DeCesare Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection Southeast Region -Main Office 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 gregory.decesare@state. ma.us Ms, Lynne Hamlyn 690 Thousand Oaks Drive Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 Ihamlyn@eapecodwetlands.eom March 8, 2016 Ms. Kelly Grant Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth 1146 Route 28 So. Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664-4492 kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us Re: DEP File# SE83-2048, Still Subject to prior SOC, File No. SE 83-1286 dated November 18, 1994 Locus: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA Request for Superseding Order Of Conditions Dear Mr. DeCesare, Ms. Grant and Ms. HamIyn: As discussed at the February 24, 2016 site meeting, I submit this additional information, in supplementation of our Request for Superseding Order of Conditions ("SOC"). The property involves a number of resource areas, including a Coastal Bantc (310 CMR 10.30), Coastal Beach (310 CMR 10.27) land subject to coastal storm flowage (310 CMR 10.04 and 10.24) a special flood hazard area (310 CMR 10.04 and FEMA/FIRM MAP 25001 CO588J, effective July 16, 2014) land at zone AE (EL 11), as shown on panel 588, a limit of moderate wave action area at the intersection of zones AE 12 and AE 11, as shown on panel 588, land bordering 2 the Lewis Bay Estuary, and land containing Wildlife Habitat (M.G.L.c. 131 §40 para. 14 and 310 CMR 10.24). The property is still subject to the November 18, 1994, SOC, File No. SE 83-1286, (copy enclosed) regarding a prior proposed addition, which, at para. 11, required the lowest floor to be elevated to or above base flood elevation 10. In accordance with M.G.L.c. 131 §40, the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") is concerned with flood control, storm damage prevention, protection of ground water supply, pollution prevention and protection of Wildlife Habitat. 310 CMR 10.30 required the Yarmouth Conservation Commission ("Commission") to make a written determination whether the Coastal Bank is important to flood control and/or storm damage prevention. The Commission made no such determination before issuing the Order of Conditions ("OOC"). To assess flood control and storm damage prevention, the Commission needed to know if the proposed reconstruction and additions would be above, or below, the expected 100 year Base Flood Elevation ("BFE"). In Yarmouth, the Building Department makes such determinations. (See Yarmouth Zoning Regulations 201.4 and 403). However, the Yarmouth Building Department has never made such a determination. To make such a determination requires determination of the BFE for the property and determination of whether the existing structure and renovations and additions must meet the existing Building Code. Under 44 CFR 59, a "development permit" is required, because the property is located in a flood plain and in a special flood hazard area ("SFHA"). The entire L2 acre property is land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ("LSCSF"), therefore the portion of the Notice of Intent saying only 5600 square feet was LSCSF is wrong. The entire 1.2 acre property is also a SFHA, No "development permit" issued for this project. FEMA 480, February 2005 at pp. 5-21, requires that a "development must not increase the flood hazard on other properties." The Commission made no such determination before issuing the OCC. FEMA 480, at pp. 5-23, requires a "no rise" certification from a registered professional engineer. No such certification was presented to the Commission. The Commission also did not address the existing November 18, 1994 SOC, or the Certificate of Compliance under M.G.L.c. 131 §40 dated April 18, 2000, that states only the septic work complied with the November 18, 1994 SOC. Substantially improved structures must be protected from the expected BFE. FEMA 480 at pp. 5-27, and FEMAP-758, May 2010. 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2) reauires the lowest floor. (see illustration enclosed)(including basement) be elevated to or above the BFE. The BFE, for an AE zone along the coast is .4 feet above the BFE on the FIRM map. FEMA 480, at pp. 4-6. Thus, the proposed reconstruction and additions must have a lowest tloor at or above 11.4 feet. The Notice of Intent ("NOI") site plan does not show a lowest floor height, does not say the existing building has a basement full of utilities and HVAC equipment, but rather, only shows a top of foundation height of I t.1 feet. The Commission issued the OCC without first asking the Yarmouth Building Department, if it had done the calculations required by FEMA 480, at pp. 8-4, and in FEMAP-758, May, 2010, to determine if the proposed renovations exceeded 50% of the value of the existing structure. The Yarmouth Building Department never followed the FEMA 480 regulations at 8-4 to 8-17. The assessed value of the structure was $397,300 according to the Yarmouth tax assessment. The land was assessed at $1,078,400. The current owner bought the structure and land for $1,570,000 on November 3, 2014. The structure was built in 1934. FEMA 480, at 8-6 requires use of the building's "market value". Based on the tax assessment and sale price, the building was worth $400,000 to $500,000 dollars. On January 13, 2016 the general contractor delivered the building owner a proposal for the renovations, which would cost $734,335.00 (copy attached). This amount exceeds the market value by 183% to 196%, well over the 50% threshold. Moreover, the proposed renovation to "common walls", kitchen, and the second story addition (see FEMA 480, at 8-10, 8-14) all trigger the requirement that the lowest floor of the entire structure be renovated to the current Building Code at or above BFE 11.4. The existing basement will need to be filled. (FEMA 480, at 8-11). Moreover, the existing SOC requires the lowest floor level to be at or above the BFE, which is now 11.4, per the July 16, 2014 FEMA/FIRM mapping. The Commission did not address the existing, prior SOC which applies to the current renewed request for an addition. The Commissioner's failure to require the applicant to submit a proposed renovation that is fully compliant with FEMA 480, FEMAP-758, and Yarmouth's own Zoning Codes, and the existing November 18, 1994 SOC, leave the abutters unable to determine what will be built and whether it will increase the flood hazard on the abutter's property. Thus, the DEP's interest in flood control is squarely implicated and the impact of the project is unknowable. Likewise, storm damage prevention is implicated and unknowable, since debris from the applicant's house would likely wash onto the abutter's property, including pollution from basement utility systems and stowed products, if the proposed project is not elevated at or above the BFE of 11.4. Finally, the DEP has an interest in enforcing the existing SOC for this property. The attached letter of Wetland and Wildlife Biologist, C. Diane Boretos, PWS, establishes that the Coastal Bank and Coastal Beach are wildiife habitat protected by 130 §40, para. 14 and 310 CMR 10.24. The applicant's plan to dig up, plant grass and put up a fence, in this area, will disturb and disrupt the wildlife habitat. Additionally, M.G.L.c. 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.05 (4)(e) require, prior to filing a Notice of intent, that permits be obtained, which are "feasible to obtain." See Conservation Commission of Brockton v. Department of Environmental Protection, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 601, 608 (2012). The site plan submitted with the NOT states the septic system location is uncertain and that it may be relocated. The shown leaching area is under land at elevation 10 and 11. However, the location of the existing system is clearly shown on the June 14, 1994 plan, copy attached. That plan shows a 5.28' separation of the septic system from ground water, assuming the ground water is at 120", 4 A percolation test on August 19, 2010 on the adjacent upland property (15 Lewis Bay Boulevard) found the ground water elevation at 114". (copy enclosed). The September 2, 2014 Title 5 Certificate, at pg. 16, (copy enclosed), found the bottom of the leaching field at 6.51. The presumed ground water elevation was 9.0' with a 2.2' adjustment. The most recent measurement, at 114', or 9.51, puts the current leaching field 3' from the ground water. This violates Title 5. Before submitting the NOI, no septic permit was sought from the Yarmouth Health Department. Such a permit, showing the location and size of the system suitable for the proposed project, or the proposed reuse of the existing system, should have been obtained prior to NOI. 310 CMR 15.00 governs, and 310 CMR 15.212-15.215 dictates elevating tanks above flood ways where feasible, achieving 4-5 foot separation from ground water where elevation is not feasible, and ensuring septic waste does not pollute an adjacent Estuary, here, Lewis Bay. If ground water is at 114" below the existing system, it is too low to reuse. Given the "substantial improvement" of the subject structure, the septic system must be fully complaint with current regulations. Given the surface elevation, location of the subsurface system, required separation to ground water, and the ground water elevation, it is quizzical how an underground system could be approved for 188 Berry Avenue, The NOI acted on by the Commission provides no assurance to an abutter, like the Durkins, that during the expected 100 year storm, the septic system for 188 Berry Avenue, presently under land with a surface elevation of 10-11, with seemingly three feet of separation from the subsurface ground water, will do anything other than leak, spreading septic waste onto the abutter's property and into the Estuary. This is unacceptable. Conspicuously absent from the NOI is any letter from a certified Hydrologist, stating the system will not leak during a 100 year storm, or that the system complies with the current requirements. For the above stated reasons, and the reasons set forth in our request for a Subersedine Order Of Conditions, and given the existing November 18, 1994 SOC which still govern, the abutters, the Durkins, respectfully request that the January 15, 2016 Order of Conditions be annulled, and the proposed project described in the NOI be rejected. Very truly yours, 'A Douglas A. Robertson DAR:Imd Enclosures 72 PINE CONE DRIVE WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673 STEVE H ETZEL - OWNER (508) 259-5252 Construction Proposal January 13, 2o16 Bigdeliazari Residence, 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA, 02673 January 13, 2016 Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth, MA 02673 Dear Ali and Elaine, It is with great pleasure that I submit the following Construction Proposal to undertake the permitting, demolition, and re -building of your existing home, new garage and family room addition at 188 Berry Avenue per plans submitted by Gary Ellis dated 12/16/2015. 1 will be your sole contact and will manage the process from demolition to completion and acceptance of the completed project. This proposal covers all construction materials and labor required for the project per final layout drawings submitted by Gary Ellis. All work to be performed will conform to 780 CMR Massachusetts State Building Code, Eighth Edition and will comply with the Conservation Order of Conditions. This Contract includes labor and materials for all of the following aspects of this project: o Demolition and Disposal of all construction material waste per permit and Conservation. o Electric and water disconnect and reconnect o Connection of new natural gas service o Excavation, backfill and re -grading of land o Portable toilet - including weekly cleaning and removal at end of project o Concrete footings, foundation and floor - including waterproofing o Frame, "B" grade natural white cedar siding, and Lifetime Architectural shingles o Electrical - per code o Plumbing - per code o Insulation - Per code o Flooring-- install new hardwood flooring with customer preference materials NOTE: There Is no provision for materials or labor to replace sub flooring or level floors if they are out of level after existing hardwood flooring is removed. Change order will be issued if required. o New bath and laundry areas to be tiled with customer preference materials o Interior ceiling and walls - Blue boarded and covered with a smooth plaster skim coat except in closets where there will be a light texture plaster coat o All interior trim, doors and hardware purchased and installed per customer preferences o Paint- Exterior trim to be painted. Interior colors to be determined at later date. All interior trim will be spray painted to provide a smooth professional quality feel. Walls and Ceilings will be painted with latex paint and conform to Construction Specifications. o All materials will meet or exceed current code requirements Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliacari Residence Page 2 Category Estimated Costs I. Site Preparation Building Permit Dumpsters (4) Excavation/Backfill/Rough Grade Existing Driveway material removal, grade and installation of t base material (included) Foundation - Addition and Garage Concrete Floor - Garage and Addition Port a Potty Subtotal $44,650 2. Framing Removal of sunporch and misc. interior wall demo and second floor ceiling demo Framing Labor - includes all window and slider installation and exterior trim Framing Materials Steel Beams in Garage - }III <<;.;,;, Need more structural specs from Gary Subtotal $188,800 2A. Fireplace New wood burning fireplace built in family room - Allowance - need material specs $5,000 Chimney/Flu for fireplace - P it1euvCzt,:: $10,000 Convert Existing fireplace to gas in master bedroom - Allc)wante, need specs for unit $3,500 Subtotal $18,500 3. Siding Strip Existing House New Siding Materials - White Cedar Shingles for new and Existing House New Siding labor Subtotal $44,350 4. Roofing Strip and Re -Shingle Existing House - Labor - Option Existing House Roof Materials (Architectural) - Option Roofing Labor Roofing Materials (Architectural ) Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 3 Rubber Roof Labor Rubber Roof Materials Subtotal $28,100 5. Windows and Exterior Doors Windows and Sliders Replacement - Existing Windows - Al, ov/Fnce $7,000 Exterior Thermatru Entry Doors (3) Garage Overhead Doors (3), Openers - $6,000 Sub Total Windows $69,415 6. Electrical System New 200 Amp Service to accommodate pool and possible backup generator, remove all old wiring from basement and first floor - Need more electrical requirement specs Smoke and Heat Detectors $34,000 Sub total 7. Piumbing/HVAC System Labor and Materials to install new plumbing fixtures and new hot water tank New furnaces, AC and all duct work Sub total $71,000 8. Insulation Blown in insulation for existing walls Basement for first floor Existing attic spray with fire retardant paint and open cell foam to accommodate upstairs furnace New Addition and Garage walls and ceiling Sub total $30,320 9. Blue board and Plaster Blue Board and Smooth Plaster - Materials and Labor Sub total $26,000 Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 4 10. Interior Doors/Trim/Millwork - Kitchen New Interior Doors Trim & Millwork Materials, including stair parts Trim & Millwork Installation including stairs Hardware for all doors Sub total $28,500 11. Flooring Tile floor materials - Allowance Tile floor installation - Master/New Lav/2nd floor exist/2nd floor new Hardwood Floor (Existing removal) Hardwood Floor Material Allowance (Est 4,550 Sq./Ft) Hardwood Floor Installation and refinishing Sub total $47,200 12. Paint, Exterior Gutters Exterior paint, materials and labor Interior paint, materials and labor Gutters/Downspouts Sub Total $25,000 13. Landscaping Driveway - Stone and Shell Cobblestone Apron Final grade Loam and Seed Sub total $22,000 New House Total $659,335 General Contracting Fee $75,000 Total $734,335 Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 5 Allowances Allowances for all customer specific materials and items without specifications supplied have been included where noted in pricing, Labor to install all plumbing fixtures, electrical appliances and all cabinetry is included. Project Timeline Goals Demolition to begin as soon as permit is issued. Estimated production time to be approximately S months to complete. Currently, projected Permit issuance date is 1/29/2016. Completion date projected is 6/30/2016. Due to previous winter's blizzard, if a similar storm affects production, there may be time added to completion date. We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor complete in accordance with the above specifications and conform to 780 CMR Massachusetts State Building Code, Eighth Edition. + All material is guaranteed as specified by manufacturer/supplier. All work to be guaranteed for one year after certificate of occupancy has been issued. + All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. • Any alterations or deviations from the supplied final plans that involve extra costs exceeding $1,000 will be issued a change order and added or subtracted from this proposal and billed accordingly. • All sub -contractors will provide liability insurance and workman's comp as required by law • All sub -contractor's invoices to be reviewed and approved by General Contractor only prior to submission to client for payment • Contractor to provide owner with weekly upcoming schedule of payments and requirements for customer supplied materials (appliances, lights, plumbing fixtures, etc.) • Upon completion of the project, punch list items will be itemized and a value applied to hold back against final payments for each sub -contractor if necessary. All pricing for materials is based on plans submitted, checked for accuracy and are for budget purposes only. Actual material prices will be invoiced and copies will be provided for all purchase. Respectfully submitted by Steve Hetzel, January 13, 2016 Lewis Bay Builders — Bigdeliazari Residence Page 6 The total cost of above project is: $734,335 Terms: General Contractor - $15,000 deposit to be paid upon contract signing. $12,500 monthly draw will be due on first Friday of each month, beginning the first month after project begins. Any unpaid balance will be due upon acceptance of project by client. Sub -Contractors and Material Purchases - Deposits may be required for some materials and sub -contractors with interim progress payments to be made prior to completion of work. Payments are due upon request from General Contractor for all submitted/approved invoices. Acceptance -The above prices, specifications, services and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to begin permitting as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. Owner - Date of Acceptance: Owner Signature: General Contractor- Date of Acceptance: General Contractor Signature: Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdcliazari Rcsidcncc Page 7 February 19, 2016 James Mahala, Section Chief Department of Environmental Protection Division of Wetlands and Waterways 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA, 02347 Re: SE83-2048 Appeal, 188 Berry Ave., Yarmouth, MA. Dear Mr. Mahala, On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Durkin I would like to offer the following comments on the proposed project at 188 Berry Ave., Yarmouth, MA. Wildlife Habitat is defined in the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L.c. 130 sec. 40, para. 14 as follows: "wildlife habitat" shall mean those areas subject to this section which, due to their plant community composition and structure, hydrologic regime or other characteristics, provide importantfood, shelter, migratory or overwintering areas, or breeding areas for wildlife. Under the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations 3 1 U CMR 10.24 General Provisions (1) states: "If the issuing authority determines that a resource area is significant to an interest identified in M.G.L. c. 131, sec. 40 for which no presumption is stated in the Preamble to the applicable section, the issuing authority shall impose such conditions as are necessary to contribute to the protection of such interests. " During the Conservation Commission public hearing, the Durkin's representative, attorney Robertson tried to submit documentation that the project site is providing significant wildlife habitat. The Chairman refused to accept this information. Mrs. Durkin has observed waterfowl such as mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) roosting during high tides on the seaward portion of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and on the Coastal. Bank for the past 5 years. Because of the juxtaposition of this property to the adjacent intertidal feeding area and some vegetative cover, it is providing important overwintering roosting habitat. During high tides certain species of waterfowl need nearby dry areas to rest, digest food, and preen their feathers with oil to keep them water repellant. The following photographs are examples of what Mr. Robertson tried to submit into the record at the public hearing. Roosting Habitat at 188 Berry Ave. Roosting Habitat at 188 Berry Ave. The Yarmouth Conservation Commission Order of Conditions failed to protect the wildlife habitat interest under the provision found in 310 CMR 10.24 (1). In addition, the plan of record does not show the AE Zone Limit of Moderate Wave Action on the site and depicted on the most recent FIRM Map, dated July 16, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, C. Diane Boretos, PWS Cc: Attorney Robertson FJ ti ++ • �,.■N 1 +1 r►i+•tom � a, 91 a) ch V) 4) mc IL 4) x to we 0 N 4 c M co I_ rr� 4) u c rarm bo owner information is required for every Page. Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key, it=-51 Commonwealth of Massachusetts z014 Title 5 Official inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments - 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M - 16 P - 1§ Property Address _ " "--- Claire Greeney r.j Eq� Owner's Name 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 Cityfrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection Inspection results must be submitted on this form. Inspection forms may not be altered in any way. Please see completeness checklist at the and of the fort. A. General Information Inspector Trov Williams Name of inspector `!-"—�—'-- Troy Williams Septic Inspections Company Name — —� 19 Hummel Drive Company Address ------ South Dennis MA 02660 Cityrrown State Zip Code — --� (508) 385 -1300 S1682 Telephone Number License Number B. Certification I Certify that I have personally inspected the sewage disposal system at this address and that the information reported below is true, accurate and complete as of the time of the inspection. The inspection was performed based on my training and experience in the proper function and maintenance of on site sewage disposal systems. I am a DEP approved system inspector pursuant to Section 15.340 of Title 5 (310 CUR 15.000). The system: 0 Passes ❑ Conditionally Passes ❑ Fails ❑ Needs Further Evaluation by the Local Approving Authority 2%. September 2, 2014 Inspectors Signal Date —�`— The system inspector shall submit a copy of this inspection report to the Approving Authority (Board of Health or DEP) within 30 days of completing this inspection. If the system is a shared system or has a design flow of 10,000 gpd or greater, the inspector and the system owner shall submit the report to the appropriate regional office of the DEP. The original should be sent to the system owner and copies sent to the buyer, if applicable, and the approving authority. *"*"This report only describes conditions at the time of inspection and under the conditions of use at that time. This Inspection does not address how the system will perform In the future under the same or different conditions of use. aline - 3H 3 TWO 5 Oft W krepe bW Forth: S bwlew Smog* O*pftW syetan • Pape t of 17 Owner information is required for every page. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greeney Owner's Name 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02873 September 2 2014 State rip Code bate of tnspedon B. Certification (cont.) Inspection Summary: Check A,B,C,D or E / always complete all of Section D A) System Passes: ® I have not found any information which indicates that any of the failure criteria described in 310 CMR 15.303 or in 310 CMR 15.304 exist. Any failure criteria not evaluated are indicated below. Comments: System meets minimum standards set by Massachusetts DEP at the time of inspection only.This inspection is not a guarantee or warranty on the future working conditions of leaching, pipes, . components or the future structural integrity of said components and only represents conditions found at the time of inspection only. B) System Conditionally Passes: ❑ One or more system components as described in the "Conditional Pass" section need to be replaced or repaired. The system, upon completion of the replacement or repair, as approved by Me Board of Health, will pass. Check the box for "yes", "no" or "not determined" (Y, N, ND) for the following statements. If "not determined," please explain. The septic tank is metal and over 20 years old* or the septic tank (whether metal or not) Is structurally unsound, exhibits substantial infiltration or exfiitration or tank failure is imminent. System will pass inspection if the existing tank is replaced with a complying septic tank as approved by the Board of Health. A metal septic tank will pass inspection if it is structurally sound, not leaking and if a Certificate of Compliance indicating that the tank is less than 20 years old is available. Y ® N ❑ ND (Explain below): TO 5 ONOW Ir Wbon Form: &WWffraM Sawape DWpoW Syat - - Pop 2 d 17 t5iro - 3113 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Property Address _ Claire Greeney Owner owner's Name information is188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 Se required for everyptember 2, 2014 page. Crtyrrown State Zip Code Date of inspection B. Certification (cont.) ❑ Pump Chamber pumps/alarms not operational. System will pass with Board of Health approval if pumps/alarms are repaired. B) System Conditionally Passes (cont.): ❑ Observation of sewage backup or break out or high static water level in the distribution box due to broken or obstructed pipe(s) or due to a broken, settled or uneven distribution box. System will pass inspection N (with approval of Board of Health): ❑ broken pipe(s) are replaced ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ obstruction is removed ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): 0 distribution box is leveled or replaced ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ The system required pumping more than 4 times a year due to broken or obstructed pipe(s). The system will pass inspection if (with approval of the Board of Health): ❑ broken pipe(s) are replaced ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ obstruction is removed ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): C) Further Evaluation Is Required by the Board of Health: ❑ Conditions exist which require further evaluation by the Board of Health in order to determine if the system is failing to protect public health, safety or the environment. 1. System will pass unless Board of Health determines in accordance with 310 CMR 15.303(1)(b) that the system is not functioning in a manner which will protect public health, safety and the environment: ❑ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a surface water ❑ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a salt marsh t5ins - 3r13 role 5 Ofic4W kmpecbon Form: S grace Sewape ortpwal SysWn • Pape 3 or 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M - 16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greene .__ Owner owner's Name information is 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2 2014 required for every Cityffown state Zip Code Date of Iraperxion page. B. Certification (cost.) 2. System will fait unless the Board of Health (and Public Water Supplier, If anyhealth, determines that the system is functioning in a manner that protects the public safety and environment: ❑ The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system (SAS) and the SAS is within 100 feet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. ❑ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within a Zone 1 of a public water supply. ❑ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within 50 feet of a private water supply well. ❑ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is less than 100 feet but 50 feet or more from a private water supply well". Method used to determine distance: ** This system passes if the well water analysis, performed at a DEP certified laboratory, for fecal coliform bacteria indicates absent and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provided that no other failure criteria are triggered. A copy of the analysis must be attached to this form. 3. Other: D) System Failure Criteria Applicable to All Systems: You must indicate "Yes" or "No" to each of the following for at inspections: Yes No ❑ ® Backup of sewage into facility or system component due to overloaded or Dogged SAS or cesspool ❑ ® Discharge or ponding of effluent to the surface of the ground or surface waters due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool ❑ ® Static liquid level in the distribution box above outlet invert due to an overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool ❑ ® Liquid depth in cesspool is less than 6" below invert or available volume is less than 'A day flow Tf% 5 oMdM Nspecdn Fam: 8ubwxhia Swaps obpoe* Sires - p4 4 of 17 t5iru - 3113 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M - 16 P - 16 Property Address Claire Greeney _ Owner Owner's Name -- infonmatlon is required for every 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 page. Cdyrrown state Zip Code Date of Inspection B. Certification (cont.) Yes No ❑ ® Required pumping more than 4 times in the last year NOT due to clogged or obstructed pipe(s). Number of times pumped, ❑ ® Any portion of the SAS, cesspool or privy is below high ground water elevation. ❑ ® Any portion of cesspool or privy is within 100 feet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. ❑ Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within a Zone 1 of a public well. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a private water supply well. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is less than 100 feet but greater than 50 feet from a private water supply well with no acceptable water quality analysis. [This system passes N the well water analysis, performed at a DEP certified laboratory, for fecal coliform bacteria indicates absent and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen Is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provided that no other failure criteria are triggered. A copy of the analysis and chain of custody must be attached to this form.] ❑ ® The system is a cesspool serving a facility with a design flow of 2000gpd- 10,0009pd. ❑ ® The system fait. I have determined that one or more of the above failure criteria exist as described in 310 CMR 15.303, therefore the system fails. The system owner should contact the Board of Health to determine what will be necessary to correct the failure. E) Large Systems: To be considered a large system the system must serve a facility with a design flow of 10,000 gpd to 15,000 gpd. For large systems, you must indicate either "yes" or "no" to each of the following, in addition to the questions in Section D. Yes No ❑ ❑ the system is within 400 feet of a surface drinking water supply ❑ ❑ the system is within 200 feet of a tributary to a surface drinking water supply ED ❑ the system is located in a nitrogen sensitive area .(Interim Wellhead Protection Area - IWPA) or a mapped Zone If of a public water supply well If you have answered "yes" to any question in Section E the system is considered a significant threat, or answered "yes" In Section D above the large system has failed. The owner or operator of any large system considered a significant threat under Section E or failed under Section D shall upgrade the system in accordance with 310 CMR 15.304. The system owner should contact the appropriate regional office of the Department. t5ins • 3113 Title 5 OffiaW 4Kpsdbon Form; Subsu fam Sw"ps DaposW System • Paps 5 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Bent' Avenue, West Yarmouth M - 16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greeney _ Owner information is required for every Owner's Name 188 Bent' Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2 2014 - suft Zip Code Date of impectkan page. Cttylrown C. Checklist Check if the following have been done. You must indicate "yes" or "no' as to each of the following: Yes No ® ❑ Pumping information was provided by the owner, occupant, or Board of Health ❑ ® Were any of the system components pumped out in the previous two weeks? ® ❑ Has the system received normal flows in the previous two week period? Have large volumes of water been Introduced to the system recently or as part of ❑ this inspection? ❑ Were as built plans of the system obtained and examined? (if they were not available note as N/A) (� ❑ Was the facility or dwelling inspected for signs of sewage back up? ® ❑ Was the site inspected for signs of break out? ® ❑ Were all system components, excluding the SAS, located on site? $� ❑ Were the septic tank manholes uncovered, opened, and the interior of the tank inspected for the condition of the baffles or tees, material of construction, dimensions, depth of liquid, depth of sludge and depth of scum? ® ❑ Was the facility owner (and occupants if different from owner) provided with information on the paper maintenance of subsurface sewage disposal systems? The size and location of the Soil Absorption System (SAS) on the site has been determined based on: ® ❑ Existing information. For example, a plan at the Board of Health. ❑ Determined in the field (if any of the failure criteria related to Part C is at issue approximation of distance is unacceptable)1310 CMR 15.302(5)1 D. System information Residential Flow Conditions: Number of bedrooms (design): 7 Number of bedrooms (actual): 6 - DESIGN flow based on 310 CMR 15.203 (for example: 110 gpd x # of bedrooms): 770 WAs - 3113 TNe 5 oflidd kmpgo_ Farm: 8umpft- Sw-pe obpo-1 Sysom - Pape 6 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Forth - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P - 16 Property Address - Claire Greeney --_--_ Owner Owner's Name loformatlon is — required for every 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2 2014 PaW_ CilyRown State Zip Code Date of inspection D. System Information Description: Number of current residents: Does residence have a garbage grinder? Is laundry on a separate sewage system? (include laundry system inspection information in this report.) Laundry system inspected? Seasonal use? Water meter readings, if available (last 2 years usage (gpd)): Detail: Sump pump? Last date of occupancy: Commemia!/Industriai Flow Conditions: Type of Establishment: Design flow (based on 310 CMR 15.203). Basis of design flow (seats,/persons/sq.ft, etc.): Grease trap present? Industrial waste holding tank present? Non -sanitary waste discharged to the Title 5 system? Water meter readings, if available: WA 1 ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes No ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No 13=76,000 gals. 12=91,000 gals._ ❑ Yes ® No occu led____ Date NIA Gallons per day (gpd) ~-- N/A NIA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No Sine • 3/13 Title 5 C"Cial OMPecdon Form: subsurftw SUNape UNIPO r System • Paps 7 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 official Ins111- pection luForm ntary gents Subsurface Sewage Disposal System FarmNot for M-18 P-16 188 BerryAAvenue, West Yarmouth — Property Address Claire Greeney —_ Owner Owner's Name information is 188 Bet Avenue, West Yarmou, th MA 0283 , State Zip Code Date Of Irgpetion required for every page cityrrown D. System Information (cont.) NIA Last date of occupancy/use: Date other (describe below): NI -A Geneml information Pumping Records: No pumping info was available. Source of information: Was system pumped as part of the inspection? Q Yes ® No If yes, volume pumped: gallons How was quantity pumped determined? Reason for pumping: Type of System: ® Septic tank, distribution box, soil absorption system Q Single cesspool Q Overflow cesspool [] Privy Q Shared system (yes or no) (if yes, attach previous inspection records, if any) [j innovativelAltemative technology. Attach a copy of the current operation and maintenance contract (to be obtained from system owner) and a copy Of latest inspection of the 11A system by system operator under contract 0 Tight tank. Attach a copy of the DEP approval. Q Other (describe): Tina 5 oftio irspecbw form: Sutrat+190 S-VP t)' I ' M Sys"", Paps 8 of 17 t5im - 3119 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 official inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Bent' Avenue West Yarmouth M - 16 P - 16 Property Address -- --- Claire Greeney Owner Owners Name --- information is required for every 18813erry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 page. Cityrrown state Zip Code Date of Inspection — D. System Information (cons.) Approximate age of all components, date installed (if known) and source of information: Tank, d-box and leaching were installed on 8/19/96 per compliance Were sewage odors detected when arriving at the site? Building Sewer (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: Material of construction: ❑ cast iron ® 40 PVC ❑ other (explain): Distance from private water supply well or suction line: 18"+ feet --- -- feet Comments (on condition of joints, venting, evidence of leakage, etc.): Lines were found clear at the time of inspection. Septic Tank (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: Material of construction: ® concrete ❑ metal If tank is metal, fist age: 2.3' with riser to 6" feet - — -- ❑ fiberglass ❑ polyethylene ❑ other (explain) years Is age confirmed by a Certificate of Compliance? (attach a copy of certificate) ❑ Yes ❑ No Dimensions: 2000 gallon Sludge depth: 4" rsim . 3113 7ilb 5 Orfidal rrurpegion Form 3ub3irrace Sewage Disposer Syarom • asps 9 a 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Ya_ rmouth M -18 P - 16 Property Address Claire Greeney-__-_-- Owner owner's Name information is 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2' 2014 required for every City/Town , T State Zip Code Date of Inspection page. D. System Information (cont.) Septic Tank (cont.) Distance from top of sludge to bottom of outlet tee or baffle 2' 8" none Scum thickness Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle f" Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle 14" probe/measured u How were dimensions determined? Comments (on pumping recommendations, Inlet and outlet tee or baffle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels as related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.): Pvc inlet and outlet tees were found present and in working order. No evidence of leakage or damage was found. Tank was not in need of pumping at this time Grease Trap (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: Material of construction: (Q concrete ❑ metal [] fiberglass Dimensions: Scum thickness Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle Date of last pumping: NtA _- feet ❑ polyethylene NIA NIA ❑ other (explain): N/A N/A N/A Date TM, 5 00100 k*P*cb01 FOM Subwfaa Sss ape Wsp " Sysom - Paps 10 of 17 t51ns • 3113 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Property Address --- Claire Greeney inform Qwner Owner's Name information is ---- required for every i88 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth page- odyn ownmouMA 02673 September 2 2014 State Zip Code Date of inspection D. System information (cunt.) Comments (on pumping recommendations, inlet and outlet tee or baffle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels as related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.): Tight or Holding Tank (tank must be pumped at time of inspection) (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: N/A _ Material of construction: ❑ concrete ❑ metal ❑ fiberglass ❑ polyethylene ❑other (explain): Dimensions: NIA Capacity: N/A gallons --� Design Flow: N/A gallons per day -- ----- Alarm present: ❑ Yes ❑ No Alarm level: N/A Alarm in working order: El Yes ❑ No Date of last pumping. N/A — Date -- Comments (condition of alarm and float switches, etc.): N/A Attach copy of current pumping contract (required). Is copy attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No Mns - 3113 Title 15 oMicw Irt14 dan Form: Bubeurfe &AMW DWPO" Syepm - POW 11 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title v Official Inspection Farm Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form -Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P - 16 Property AddreSS Claire Greeney Owner Owner's Name information is 188 Be Avenue, Yarmouth MA _ 02673 September 2 2f)14 required for every City/ town _- State Zip Code Date of inspection page. D. System Information (corn.) Distribution Box (if present must be opened) (locate on site plan): level Depth of liquid level above outlet invert Comments (note if box is level and distribution to outlets equal, any evidence of solids carryover, any evidence of leakage into or out of box, etc.): D-box was found level and in working order with equal distribution to outlet lines. No evidence of solid carrver or backup in the mast was found at the time of inspection Pump Chamber (locate on site plan): Pumps in working order: ❑ Yes ❑ No" Alarms in working order: [] Yes ❑ No' Comments (note condition of pump chamber, condition of pumps and appurtenances, etc.): N if pumps or alarms are not in working order, system is a conditional pass. Soil Absorption System (SAS) (locate on site plan, excavation not required): If SAS not located, explain why: ,be 6 OWA M kupOenoo dorm 8ubwhos &Mope owpo" system • Peps 12 of 17 Wine • M3 Commonwealth of Massachusetts IVTitle 5 Official inspection Form Subsurface Sewaga Disposal System Form _ Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M - 16 P - i6 Property Address _._ i)wner Claire Greenev nfonnation is Cwner's Name required for every 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2 2014 _ Page. Cityr I wn State Zip Code Date of inspection D. System Information (cons.) Type: ❑ leaching pits number: ® leaching chambers number 6 flowdiffusers with 2' stone ❑ leaching galleries number. 2 - 28' X 8' X 2' ❑ leaching trenches number, length: ❑ leaching fields number, dimensions: — ---- ❑ overflow cesspool number. ❑ innovative/altemative system Type/name of technology: — Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, damp soil, condition of vegetation, etc.): Soil was sandy, flows were found with little water present with wails found clean with no staining. Checked stone and found dry and clean. No evidence of hydraulic failure or problems in the past were found at the time of inspection i Cesspools (cesspool must be pumped as part of inspection) (locate on site plan): Number and configuration N/A Depth — top of liquid to inlet invert Depth of solids layer Depth of scum layer Dimensions of cesspool Materials of construction Indication of groundwater inflow t5ins • 3r13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No Title 5 Of t" WwpecbM Form; 54EareFW* Sswape 044MIN System • Pape 13 or 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official inspection Form subsurface Sewage Disposal system Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 BerrLAvenue, West Yarmouth M - 16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greece -- Owner Owner's Name information is 188 Berry Avenue. West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 required for every cityirown state Zip code Doft of Inspection page. D. System Information (cunt.) Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, condition of vegetation, etc.): N/A -- Privy (locate on site plan): Materials of construction: Dimensions N/A N/A Depth of solids Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, condition of vegetation, etc.): N/A Tits 3 OfAdd Wapeeban Fsnn: &g*0WX Sswaps DaPad SyMm - Pape 14 0117 t5ins - 3M 3 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Fonn - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M 16 P 16 Property Address Claire Greeney Owner Owner's Name --- information is required for every 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 page. Cityfrown State Zip Code Date of Inspection D. System Information (cont.) Sketch Of Sewage Disposal System: Provide a view of the sewage disposal system, including lies to at least two permanent reference landmarks or benchmarks. Locate all wells within 100 feet. Locate where public water supply enters the building. Check one of the boxes below: ® hand -sketch in the area below ❑ drawing attached separately dins - 3M3 Tide 5 O"hW Inspa— F—' Sudur — Sawapa piW" System - Pape 15 of 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Forth -Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M - 16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greeney --- Owner Owners Name information is 1813 Be Avenue ,West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 required for every C� --- —' state Zip Code Date of Inspection page. Down . System Information (cons.) Site Exam: ® Check Slope ® Surface water ❑ Check cellar ❑ Shallow wells 10.0'+ _ Estimated depth to high ground water: feet Please indicate all methods used to determine the high ground water elevation: Obtained from system design plans on record 6/24/93 If checked, date of design plan reviewed: Date ® Observed site (abutting property/observation hole within 150 feet of SAS) ❑ - Checked with local Board of Health - explain: ❑ Checked with local excavators, installers - (attach documentation) ® Accessed USGS database - explain: MIW 29 Zone A 9 0' 2 2' adjustment You must describe how you established the high ground water elevation: Test hole recorded on plan showed water found at 10.Y. Hand augered T below bottom of leaching with no water found at a depth of 9.5'. Groundwater adjustment at the time of inspection was 2.2'. Bottom of leaching at 6.5' was found not to be located in the high groundwater elevation at the time of inspection. Plan attached Before filing this inspection Report, please see Report Completeness Checklist on next page. Tfft S omsw UWpecW FOW Sub.,rlaoo SOWN40 CKSP-d Syrf m • POW 16 of 17 t6ft • 3113 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M 16 P 16 Property Address — — ----- Claire Greeney Owner Owner's Name information is required for every 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 page' City/Tom State Zip Code Date of Inspection E. Report Completeness Checklist 19 Inspection Summary: A, B, C, D, or E checked ® Inspection Summary D (System Failure Criteria Applicable to Ail Systems) completed ® System Information — Estimated depth to high groundwater i� Sketch of Sewage Disposal System either drawn on page 15 or attached in separate file Mna • 3113 TWO 54 Of W kapeWon Form: Subswfaoe Saweyfe [)*pOSel Sysnm • Pape 17 0117 �y[ ��r-��- •g A 1 � 1 �� c, S F:� � •'�J - 'o 'L V. Il a a i N AI e t $2 *�$ n ,n O �M a I � t oa r 1' I i IwQI 110n, Vr+ � o U �=NFL ! V! ^ I N, 'I! }' r�tVt: n• J /f z(J(r. r A�.:� ylv; I� 01 N; o- IO cn�Waa= •�t � - J �l yi Ji Q'1� •li �il� � St a •�'i J }� ow $ W j V ai41�0 4• Ln <ax�Xo is tii `�Oidlai y:T }�4 R' a tea. ...ill 4 nth SYO :n. sO �� Y� � •• S. � r' M_ . 11 `i' •,-v wt;� � / I.'` i 4� 1 v 7ti t 4 j'{st 0'r, Ili No- _ ....,. �.._ F� THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH TOWN OF YARMOUTH _ t� Apphrul un for Otspautti Works fSunahwftu 11rrmtt 401 AppIitcation is hereby made for a Permit to Construct W or Repair ( ) an Individual Sewage Disposal tegag-ow r Type of Budding i�w - SizAdde ,��.r� Size I.ot...lae..w2.. Sq.�..t Dwelling -- No. of Bedrooms............ _'. ...................Expansion Attic ( ) Garbage Grinder (Njv Other —Type of Building ..... _........ _..... _. No. of persons .............. ._........ Showers ( ) — Cafeteria ( ) Other fixtures.................. Design Flow .... w...... ,E t„� ...... .........dons per. ...... .....Total d i y fl)............ .7.Q............. gallmts. Septic Tank — Liquid' capacity W04anons Length,-lA�y�WidthN�Ae.. Diameter ................ Depth ....... .-....... Disposal Trench No, ..._....._ r.... Width .......... ......... Total Length ............. sj . Total leaching area.....�..s�.._.. sq. it. Seepage Pit Ny7�,tG.eP .... Depth below inlet..../...nr .._..... Total Ieaching area...�_.y...�..sq. ft. Other Distribution box) pB'- 5i' Dori tank { Percolation Test Results Performed by, a�!S%.� QEl C4 ..� ,p . .... Dat.&W- tz..n's Test Pit No. l _.o Zminutes per inch Depth of Test Pit. �_...... Depth to ground water./e......._...... Test Pit No. 2................minutes per inch Depth of Test Pit ..... ........... _. Depth to ground water........................ .r Description of Nature of Repairs or Alterations — Answer when applicable...,...ae"'t'�.d.. Agreement: The undersigned agrees to install the aforedescribed Individual Sewage Disposal System in accordance with the provisions of TITLE 5 of the State Sanitary Code — The undersigned further agrees not to place the system in operation until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the board of hea;(h. Application Approved Application Disapprove _ .......... ........ hTa.... 'f-!- ................ .... ...........w.._........w................................ ^.�., w.._ Permit THE COJAONWEALTH OF MA"ACMUSETTS �`9OARD OF HEALTH 0 TOWN of YARMOUTH eawtrat of t�um�rlimzr� THIS IS TO CERTIThat the Ind' ewage Disposal System constructed ( ) or Repaired by.w.....w...r...r....r.r_.ww..w..rC�iQ,Et...w..C'«...................._....._.r........a.._.... ......._........ww....w_r«w at...... ...... ........ ww..... ................».... r.www............... ....r ......_ww. has been installed in accordance li the provisions of TITLE 5 of TbgSftte 59nitary, Code as d ie application for Disposal Works Construction Permit No. ����dated.......... " .......•.J=40 THE ISSUANCE OF THIS CERTIFICATE. SHAL N0 EE CONS�UEO AS A RANTEII THAT THE SYS M WILL PUNCT1ON SATISFACTORY. Z Mrs L PERCOLATION TEST LOG Tirtte:�^�_ Lot Fo. /Street: / s f` D Engineer:_ 4zc-h �A,,E/ Health Agent: Expansion Area:YYes: No: Suitable/Su urface Sewage:Yes:_No: Expansion area Tested:Yes:�No: Leaching F'eld:_Pits:_Trenches: If No --Why? Unsui tabl ; Why? Well: Town Water: Subdivision/Owners ame: Sketch: �-1 Notes : II oil Water At:IffPC �. 4 0 V Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Protection Southeast Regional Office - 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville l`tliA 02847.508-946- 700 C?)arles D, Bakor GovP_mor retz'. Ka ryn C. foi€tn >t".m r Lei ulenant Michael and Janet Durkin c/o Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenny Attorneys at Law 101 Merrimac Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114-4716 Dear Attorney Robertson: RE: YARMOUTH--Wetlands File No. SE 83 - 2048 Superseding Order of Conditions — Affirmation Following an in-depth review of the above -referenced file, and in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, § 40, the Department of Environmental Protection has issued the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions. Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.05(7)(i) of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations, the enclosed Order affirms the Yarmouth Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions approving the proposed single family house improvements and mitigation planting. The Department has determined that the Coastal Bank is significant to flood control and storm damage prevention because it acts as a vertical buffer to storm waters. In addition, the Department has determined that the proposed project will not adversely affect the stability of the Coastal Bank in accordance with the performance standard at 310 CUR 10.30(6). In the Department's opinion, the project as proposed and conditioned herein adequately protects the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Please be advised that the Department reserves the right, should there be further proceedings in the klmla,Jor€ is a raj5al,1e iv. Gall r.°,,;+3;, .*, r ;t'S;af.er;>-£:�;° sn.�<cvcrsi�,tC;scd:.t:. ,sc�°{'..s,....'f'%`�;'r�a:,<;�*tc;.;,p:r�ru^cr,?-ii'3:'•.....,. matter, to raise additional issues and present further evidence as may be appropriate. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Greg DeCesare at (508) 946-2762. Very truly yours, ':�� ' tAt-." James Mahala, Chief Wetlands and Waterways Program WI-XII Enclosure cc: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari c/o Lynne Hamlyn Hamlyn Consulting 690 Thousand Oaks Drive Brewster, MA 02631 Certified Mail #7014 2120 0002 1170 2785 C FY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection oEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands SE 83 - 2048 .a r WPA Form 5-Superseding Order of Conditions - Affirmation Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G..L. c. 131, §40 A. Genera! information From: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection _ Issuing Authority This issuance is for: ® Superseding Order of Conditions — Affirmation To: Applicant: Property Owner (if different from applicant): .Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari Name Narrfe 18_- Jt�M er. WaY.__.....__ _ _ Address Medway .VIA. 02053 Cityf own State Zip Code CityfTown State Zip; Cede 1. Project Location: 188 Berg Ave. Yarmouth ---- - Street Address --City/Town 16. 52 Asses_sors Map/Plat Number . Parcel/Lot Number 2. General Description of Approved Project: Single fancily house additions, swimming pool, pervious driveway, garage, lawn reduction and replacement with mitigation planting of native salt tolerant species, fencing Page 1 of 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection oEP F, Number Bureau of Resource Protection — Wetlands. SE 83 - 204- 4 WPA Form 5-Superseding Order of Conditions - Affirmation Massachusetts'Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L: c. 131, §40 3. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (if different from those listed in Order of Conditions): Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue December 21 Tte John Z. Demarest, fr. _.-- Signed and Stamped by ... _.._............. 4. Date of Issuance: SIP S 2016 Certified Mail #7014 2120 0002 1170 2785 B. Findings The Department hereby finds that the project as proposed is approved subject to the following conditions: In accordance with 310 CMR 10.05(7)(i), this Superseding Order of Conditions affirms fhe Order of Conditions issued by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission on January 15m, 2016. The Order of Conditions is attached and is incorporated by reference. 1. All work shall comply with the conditions contained in the attached Order of Conditions, subject to the following modifications: a. The work shall comply with the plans referenced in this Superpeding Order, if different from those listed in the Order of Conditions. Any change to the plans referenced herein shall require the applicant to inquire of the Department in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. b. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Superseding Order unless otherwise specified below by the Department. c. Requests for extensions in accordance with General Condition #5 shall be submitted to .the Department. d. Proof of recording In accordance with General Condition #9 shall be submitted to the Department. e. Requests for a Certificate of Compliance in accordance with General Condition #12 shall be submitted to the Department, and wetland boundary flags shall remain -in place pursuant to General Condition #17 until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Department. f. The Department makes no findings and imposes no conditions pursuant to a municipal bylaw or ordinance. Page 2of4 ! . Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection oEP File Number. iBureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE 83 - 2048 t` 1 WPA Form 5-Superseding -Order of Conditions - Affirmation Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Issuance issued by; Department of Environmental Protection Signature: James a, Chief, Wetlands & Waterways Program C) Appeal Rights and Time Limits Date 16 2016.. The applicant, the landowner, any person aggrieved by the Superseding Order, Determination or other Reviewable Decision as defined at 310 CMR 10.04, who previously participated in the proceedings leading to this Reviewable Decision, the conservation commission, or any ten (10) residents of the city or town where the land is located if at least one resident was previously a participant in the permit proceeding, are hereby notified of their right to appeal this Reviewable Decision pursuant to M.G.L. c.30A3 § 10, provided the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, along with the appropriate filing- fee and a MassDEP Fee Transmittal Form within ten (10) business days of the date of issuance of this Superseding Order or Determination, and addressed to: Case Administrator Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street, 2 d Floor Boston, MA 02108. A copy of the request (hereinafter also referred to as Appeal Notice) shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission, the applicant, the person that requested the Superseding Order or Determination, and the issuing office of the MassDEP at: MassDEP 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA. 02347 In the event that a ten resident group requested the Superseding Order or Detenrnination, the Appeal Notice shall be served on the designated representative of the ten resident group, whose name and contact information is included in this Reviewable Decision (when relevant). Page 3 of 4 Contents of Appeal Notice An Appeal Notice shall comply with the Department's Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 CMR 1.01(6) and 310 CMR 10.05(7)(j), and shall contain the following information: (a) the MassDEP Wetlands File Number, name of the applicant, landowner if different from applicant, and address of the project; (b) the complete name, mailing address, email address; and fax and telephone numbers of the party filing the Appeal Notice; if represented by consultant or counsel, the name, fax and telephone numbers, email address, and mailing address of the representative; if a ten residents group, the same information' for the group's designated representative; (c) if the Appeal Notice is filed by a ten (10) resident group, then a demonstration of participation by at least one resident in the previous proceedings that led to this Reviewable Decision; (d) if the Appeal Notice is filed by an aggrieved person, then a demonstration of participation in the previous proceeding that lead to this Reviewable Decision and sufficient written facts to demonstrate status as a person aggrieved; (e) the names, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses of all other interested parties, if known; (f) a clear and concise statement of the alleged errors contained in the Department's decision and how each alleged error in.inconsistent with. 310 CMR 10.00 and does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. c.131, § 40, including reference to the statutory or regulatory provisions that the party filing the Appeal Notice alleges has been violated by the Department's Decision, and the relief sought, including any specific desired changes to the Department's decision; (g) a copy of the Department's Reviewable Decision that is being appealed and a copy of the underlying Conservation Commission decision if the Reviewable Decision affirms the Conservation Commission decision; (h) a statement that a copy of the request has been sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the applicant and the conservation commission; and (i) if asserting a matter that is Major and Complex, as defined at 310 CMR 10.04(1), a statement requesting that the Presiding Officer make a designation of Major and Complex, with specific reasons supporting the request. Filing Fee and Address A copy of the Appeal Notice along with a MassDEP Fee Transmittal Form and a valid check or money order payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) must be mailed to: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commonwealth Master Lockbox P.O. Box 4062 Boston, Massachusetts 02211 The request will be dismissed if the filing fee is not paid, unless the appellant is exempt or granted a waiver. The filing fee is not required if the appellant is a city or town (or municipal agency), county, district of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or a municipal housing authority. The Department may waive the adjudicatory hearing filing fee pursuant to 310 CMR 4.06(2) for a person who shows that paying the fee will create an undue financial hardship. A person seeking a waiver must file an affidavit setting forth the facts believed to support the claim of undue financial hardship together with the hearing request as provided above: Page 4 of 4 .�- Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Im Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File # Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.•c. 131, §40 eD i'ari cLt7C7:i#� Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth Cityrown A. General Information Please note: Yarmouth ' thisfo%has been modified 1. From: — _.._. __..___._..._ C.onsenrafion Commission with added space to 2. This issuance is for a. ®Order of Conditions b. [ Amended Order of Conditions accommodate (check one): the Reglsty of Deeds 3. To: Applicant: Requirements Ali and Elaine__._._.___... _.... Bigdeilazari Important: a. ,First Name b. Last Name When filling _......_.. .... out fors on the 18 Juniper Road computer, use only the __._. _. _ _�.�. _ ___.........-_..__ d. Mailing Address ...................................... . tab key to Medway_ _ MA„ 02053 move your e. CifijJ I awn f. State g. Zip Code cursor - do not use the 4, property Owner (if different from applicant): return key. e. Cityfrcwn f. ,tc.te a, Zip Code 5. Project Location: 188 Berry Ave Yarmouth a. Street Address b. t ityfi vwr, 18 52 c Assormcfs map/pl-at Number d. Paro :lLnt Nu:mbnr Latitude and Longitude, if known: 41 d38m28s 70d14m45s d. Latitude e. Longitude wps1orm5.doc - rev. 11/1212014 Page 1 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 MassDEP File # WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions I Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # ° ! Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth City/Town A. General Information (cont.) 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for (attach additional information if more than one parcel): Barnstable a. County b. Certificate Number (if registered land) 28486 345 c. Book d, Page 12/22/2015 01/07/2016 01 /14/2016 7. Dates: a. Date Notice of Intent Filed b. Date Public Hearing Closed . c. Date of Issuance B.. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA. 188 Bent' Avenue Prepared for Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazarl Demarest Land Surveying John Demarest Jr b. Prepared By c. Signed and Stamped by December 21, 2015 1 "= 30' d. Final Revislon Date e. Scale -..._-_._......_....r___ _ f. A._dditio~ta7 Plan vl' Document Title _..___.... _...... _._._._._.....____.._--. --------- g. Date w v. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above -referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c. ®' Prevention of Pollution d. ❑ Private Water Supply e. ❑ Fisheries f. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ❑ Groundwater Supply h, ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control z This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice.of Intent, these. conditions shall control. wpaformS.doc • rev. 1 ilf 2/2U14 Page 2 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands SE83-2048 MassDEP File # WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions ✓ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c: 131, §40 eDEr T-ansectcn # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yar.math _... city/Town ...... _.... ....... .............. B. Findings (cant.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards.set forth -in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ,A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is Issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10,05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a. linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement a. ❑ Bank -- _ ... _..... __..... __............. — — a. -linear feet b. linear feet c. linear feet d. linear feet 5. ❑ Bordering _ Vegetated Wetiand a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet s. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and square Tvet b, square fret c. squarp feet d. square feet Waterways _ e, rJy•dredged f. cry dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d, square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage — -- r..^.i.sbic feet - ..._..........`.........._... f. cut:ic fecr ___ __.-..___. 7. c:�.�br, -ee;: ____ . ....._. t',...�.�;�±c 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a, square feet b. square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage c. cubic feet d. cubic feet e. cubic feet f. cubic feet s. ❑ Riverfront Area a, tots! sq. feet b, total sq. reel Sq ft within 100 ft - c. square feet - — d. square feet ......... e. square feet f• square feet ._ Sq ft between 1 OG- 200 ft g. square feet h, square feet L square feet _ j square feet wpaform5.doc • rev. 11l12=14 Page 3 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 B. Findings (cunt.) Provided by MassDEP: S E83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth cityrTown Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 1o. ❑ Designated Port Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below Areas 11. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a. square feet b. square feet 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes 1s. ® Coastal Banks 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores 17. ❑ Salt Marshes 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds 19. ❑ Land Containing Shelfsh 20. ❑ Fish Runs 21. ® Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage c, cly dredged d. cly dredged Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below cu yd ou yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment cu yd _ cu yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment 20 20 _ a.linearfeet b.linearfeet a. square feet b. square feet a. square feet b. square feet a. square feet b. square feet c. o1y dredged d. cty dredged c. square feet d. square feet a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet Indicate size under Coastal Banks; Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a. cly dredged b. cly dredged 5600 5600 a. square feet b. square feet wpa1orm5.doc • rev. 11112014 Page 4 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 -- Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yannouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 B. Findings (cunt.) pro ed iehfor 22. ❑ Restoration/Enhancement *: the purpose of restoringor -..... _...... _.._............ _.._...._._.......... _... _.__............_... ............ __ _......._._..... enhancing a a. square feet of BVW b. square feet of salt marsh wetland resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s)- in addition to the square footage that a. number of new stream crossings b. number of replacement stream crossings has been C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act entered in Section B.5.c Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth c;itytTown tovw) or The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. 6.17.c (Salt Marsh) above, 1. Failure to comply with ail conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or mod' this Order. the additional eg ry �Y amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; .it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, byiaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. The work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. The time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. c. if the work is for a Test Project, this Order of Conditions shall be valid for no more than one year. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the Issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. An Order of Conditions for a Test Project may be extended for one additional year only upon written application by the applicant, subject to the provisions of 310 CM 10.05(11xf). 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 01 /14/2019 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to- lumber, bricks, piaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe,. tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. wrparorm5.doc - rev. 11/12/2014 Page 5 of 12 —" Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: ' Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 .-r .. MassDEP File # WPA Form 5 —.Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth cityrTown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court. for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or, "MassDEP'] "File Number SE83-2048 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A) to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. wpaform5.doe • rev. 111120014 Page 6 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MessDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MsssDGP File# —... _. Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDE Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth CiiyfTown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cunt.) 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland In the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission.- 18. All sedimentation barriars shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. 19. The work associated with this Order (the 'Project') (1) ❑ is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards (2) ® is NOT subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards If the work Is subject to the Stormwater Standards, then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be Implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post -construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassD.ZP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; A as -built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; wpaform5.doc - rev. 11112M14 Page 7 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: ssssDEP Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Ma File # } ;... F WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # =�F Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth atyrrown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cost.) iv, all post -construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans) approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post -construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another parry has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party (defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement ('O&M Statement) for the Stormwater. BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ('O&M Plan") and certifying the following: 1.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and H.) the future responsible panties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) -Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi -Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the.property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the. requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate .of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Page 9 of 12 wpeform&dw - rev. 11/12/2014 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands sE83-2048 - WPA Form 5 -- Order of Conditions. MassDEP File # Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDFP Transactor A. Town of Yarmouth Wetland -By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth Cityffown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three (3) consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 GMR 10.04 are prohibited. j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit (as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six Inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): 20. For Test Projects subject to 310 CMR 10.05(11), the applicant shall also implement the monitoring plan and the restoration plan submitted with the Notice of Intent. If the conservation commission or Department determines that the Test Project threatens the public health, safety or the environment, the applicant shall implement the removal plan submitted with the Notice of Intent or modify the project as directed by the conservation commission or the Department. wpotarm5.doc • rev. 1111=014 Page 9 o/ V Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: 48 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands MasspEP File# MassDE Fil LLI.i WPA Form 5 — Order of Condifiions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L, c, 131, §40eDEP Transact onTown of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth ._._ City/Town D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes Q No 2. The Yarmouth hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission a. ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2, Citation Therefore; work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ® that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Yarmouth Wetland By -Law Chapter 143 1. Municipal ordinance or Bylaw 2. Citation 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): See attached text pages, Special Conditions Pages 10A,1013 and 10C of 12 wpeiorm5.doc - rev. 11112/2014 Page 10 of 12 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10A OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA The applicant/owner shall be responsible for having a copy of the "Order of Conditions" on the job site at all times and shall be responsible for insuring that all persons performing the permitted activity are fully aware of its terms and conditions. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of these "Orders", a fine or both. 2. The Conservation Commission, its agent(s) or assigned(s) shall have the express right of entry upon the job site at all reasonable times for the purposes of establishing compliance with the "Order of Conditions", "By -Laws" and "Regulations".Commission members and the Conservation Administrator may acquire any information, measurements, photographs, observations and/or materials or may require the submittal of any data/information deemed necessary by this Commission for that evaluation. 3. A preconstruction review shall be arranged by the contractor with the Conservation Administrator and shall occur prior to the commencement of any work. 4. Any change in the approved plan(s) shall require the Applicant to file, in writing, a notice of project change with this Commission. The Commission will determine the significance of the change and determine whether administrative approval or an "Amended Order of Conditions" is required. Should the project be changed without permission, or found by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission to be altered in any way from the approved plan(s), all work will immediately cease until the project is reapproved by the Commission. 5. The "Order of Conditions" is valid for three years from the date of issuance unless otherwise specifically noted in the "Orders". Extension Permit requests must be applied for at least 30 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the original Orders". Failure to do so will result in a new "Notice of Intent" filing. 6. Noncompliance with these conditions shall constitute grounds for an Enforcement Order and possible fines. Fines shall not exceed $300.00 per day/per violation. 7. A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed -free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. 8. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. 01/15/2016 Page 1 of 3 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10B OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 9. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. 10. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. 11. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. 12. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with. the issuance of.a Certificate of Compliance. 13. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. 14. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. 15. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. 16. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if.it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and. need replacement. 17 No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, 01/15/2016 Page 2 of 3 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10C OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 18. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, 19. A stamped "As Built Plan" shall be certified by the Design Engineer (Massachusetts registered Professional. Engineer or land Surveyor) and will certify that this project has been completed in accordance with the "Order of Conditions" before a Certificate of Compliance will be issued. The as -built plan shall indicate the structure location, gradients, distances to'the resource areas, and other pertinent inforrriation described in the application and approved plans. Any deviation from the approved plan shall be identified. 01/15/2016 Page 3 of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection LlBureau of Resource Protection : Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §400 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions #4, from the date of issuance. Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission Provided by MassDEP: zo4Fs MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction #� Yarmouth City/Town I I IS 2©tb 1, bate of Issuance 2. Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested) or hand delivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office, if not filing electronically, and the property owner, if different from applicant. v ❑ by hand delivery on [A by certified mail, return receipt requested, on _ _ 1 f l 5.12 0 / 6�..._._. —_ Date The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of .land abutting the . land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided In 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. %pafartn$.doe • rev. 11/1=014 Page 11 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands - WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts,Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131,.§40 Town. of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 G. Recording Information Provided by MassDEP: S E83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Tmnsactlon # Yarmouth City/Town Prior to commencement of work, this. Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted. on the Land Court Certificate of Tine of the owner of the land subject to.the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Yarmouth........ _.... _ _—_—_....._........________ _._............. 6011;ervation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. -------------------------------------------- ------- To: conservatio^ C©mmissian Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: 186 Ber Ave Wes Yarmouth 48 __........____..__.—__..._....._.___.._........_.___.._ Project Lbcatior, MassDEP Ric N.jrnb!. Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: Page for: and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: ....:............_._.... ......._.... Sook Path,. In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instncment Nt�rr�a4.' If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: _— ...__._. .............. Document Number ............ Signatun: of APpiicant Page 12 of 12 wpsforr.5.doc - rev. 11f12f2014 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection �... A judicato Hearing Fee Trans il-ta ° IMPORTANTi This form is intended for fee transmittal only. The. contents of a request for an adjudicatory appeal (Notice of Claim) are established at 310 CMR 1.01(6) and the substantive statutes and Tegulabons governing the Department's action. important When Wing out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key, A. Person/Party Making Request 1. Name and address of person or party making request: name - li appr'apriatc, name e _...... _ .... ....... ....... ....... . _. �irEE3t Addrfsss _.. _ ___..._........ ____.—__._.......__.....____...._....__.............. _..... _. 2. Project lrifdrrnation: Stet Address City DEP File or ID Number Email Address ............ ._......... ............ _........... .. ......... ...... _ _ . Applicant (if appliCable) 1. Name and address of applicant stgte Arnount of fifing fee atlarl'ied _ .............. Narna - If appropriate, name grow; rapresentabVtr _................................................. ...... ........... . ';i'reet Faduress _......................... -- — _ Gitf State l:tp Code >-Email Address 111,s ructio,is 1. Send this form and check or money order of $100.00 payable tc the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the MassDEP.Lockbox at: Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 4062 6aston,'MA' 02211 2. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order wtth.fhe Request for Adjudicatory Appeal (Notice of Claim) tv: Case Administrator Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 adj''hetfm.doc -rev. 5113 Acijudicetiory Hearing Fee Transmittal Farm • Page 1 of i Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street, Boston MA 52108 • Phone: 617-292-5751 m ``t Communication For Non -English Speaking Parties •310 CMR1.03(5)(e) 1 English: This document is important and should be translated immediately. If you need this document translated, please contact MassDEP's Diversity Director at the telephone numbers listed below. 2 Espatiol (Spanish): Este documento es importante y debe ser traducido inmediatamente. Si necesita este tLggggg documento traducido, por favor pongase en contacto con el Director de Diversidad MassDEP a Jos numeros de taiefono que aparecen mas abajo. 3 Portugues (Portuguese): `_ .. Este documento e importante a deve ser traduzida imediatamente. Se voce precisa deste rh ;documento traduzido, por favor, entre ern contato com Diretor de Diversidade da MassDEP para os numeros de telefone listados abaixo. 4(a) () (Chinese (Traditional): 1FrhiAfiJMassQ - 4(b) 49i (f#'*- +Z (Chinese (Simplified): 6 Ayisyen (franse kreyol) (Haitian) (French Creole): Dokiman sa-a se you baggy enpotan epi yo to dwe tradui imedyatman. Si ou bezwen =x a,dokiman sa a tradui, tanpri kontakte Divesite Direkte MassDEP a nan nimewo telef6n ki nan lis pi ba a. 6 Viot (Vietnamese): Tai liOu nay 16 rat quan trgng va can dvvc dick ngay lop tire. Neu ban can dick tAi liou nay, . ixin vui long lien h€ v&i Giam doc MassDEP da dang tai cac so diOn thoai cluqc liet ke dv&i day. 7 Luts1faVA (Kamer (Cambodian): >�MEnuJm MassDEP IE'i1 uegl6j., u8 Kriolu Kabuverdianu (Cape Verdean): Es documento a importante a deve ser traduzido *tmidiatamente. Se bo precise des documento traduzido, por favor contacts Director de Diversidade na MassDEP's pa es numero indicode 1i d'boche. 9 PyCCKNbr A3b1K (Russian): 3TOT AOKYMeHT ABJlAeTCq Ba)KHbiM H AOJ)mo 6blTb nepeBeAeHO cpa3y. EcLnti BaM HYAeH 3TOT goKyMeHT nepeBeAeHHbiri, no)KanYACTa, CBPXHTecb c gmpeKTopoM pa3Hoo6pa3V151 MassDEP no a,gpecy Teneq)OHHblX HOMepoB, yKa3aHHb]X Hmwe. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director/Civil Rights: 617-292-5751, TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439- 2370, http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/service/justice/ (Version 3.30.15) s 10 �:_)J (Arabic): our a��a�► , ;;f i1 fUJ -Ir-MassDEP -a h 11 LEG�O1 (Korean): 01 Mi AI �IQ,U0[1'LIE[. 01 8,_J 1:11101 =hi7l- R_='9. SO[ I, OI.2 P—A �- S r . 181 Mass DEPSI EE C ;11E-E--101I ' 10(-A171 d[EfLI U. 12 huxjh1i'LU (Armenian): U]u 1�w-umuilanuLlaL12m'n 4wlihnli k ht ulhuip k ptuligifuifihl iulyd[ 2uiulhu. blah ahq tuts 111uadh2ui k uju 1 iuiuuimlanulpLi piupgd-Lutig1i1 rl�aL MassDEP puigifuaquibntlaln-LhLi inhogl.-ti k hlanmx muuzhurtfuxgtihlx) lattiul144-tub hh uumphL. 13 .JU (Farsi (Persian): C"L,..1 1Q4 4.da }i i J_9 sate J :.,.I 40�0 .i►, n LwV t.:-.i J� tz.! J� ale � ,, jL �� MassDEP 14 Frangais (French): Ce document est important et devrait titre traduit immediatement.`Si vous avez besoin de ce document traduit, s'il vous plait communiquer avec le directeur de la diversity MassDEP aux numeros de t&lephone indiqu6s ci-dessous. i 15 Deutsch (German): Dieses Dokument ist wichtig and sollte sofort Qbersetzt werden. Wenn Sie dieses Dokument lObersetzt ben6tigen, wenden Sie sich bitte Diversity Director MassDEP die in den unten aufgef0hrten Telefonnummern. 4..-. ,�_..116 WgVIKr (Greek): TO yypacpo auT6 civai anpavTiK6 Kai 9a TrpETrcl va pETacppao-ro6v ap aws. Av Xpcid4ccrm IauT6 To s yypacpo pcTacppd4CTai, TTapaKaAoupE M1KO1VWV6QTE Diversity Director MassDEP KaTa Tout api9pou� Trp\ccp6jvou Trou avaypdcpETa► Tno Kdrw. 17 Italiano (Italian): fQuesto documento 6 importante a dovrebbe essere tradotto immediatamente. Se avete ibisogno di questo documento tradotto, si prega di contattare la diversity Direttore di MassDEP ai numeri di telefono elencati di seguito. 18 Jgzyk Polski (Polish): Dokument ten jest watny i powinien by6 natychmiast przetiumaczone. Je6li potrzebujesz tego dokumentu ttumaczone, prosimy o kontakt z Dyrektorem MassDEP w r6norodno;ci na numery telefon6w wymienionych poniiej. _• 19 %47t (Hindi): z c ,;a4 g cci Til t 3ft ca�i�ic� ' 3i�dt-c� �iT �f� r C� . 3t iG 3 d im a Eft �c f , A-i� W MassDEP ift f4 X t-T 4it. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director/Civil Rights: 617-292-5751 TTY## MassRelay Servicel-800- 439-2370 http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/servioefjustice/ Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Protection Southeast Regional Office • 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville MA 02347.508-946-2700 Charles D. Baker Matthew A. Beaton Governor Secretary Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner SEP 16 2016 Michael and Janet Durkin c/o Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenny Attorneys at Law 101 Merrimac Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114-4716 Dear Attorney Robertson: RE: YARMOUTH--Wetlands File No. SE 83 - 2048 Superseding Order of Conditions — Yarm` "ou co-nservation Commission SEP 19 2016 RECEIVED Following an in-depth review of the above -referenced file, and in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, § 40, the Department of Environmental Protection has issued the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions. Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.05(7)(i) of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations, the enclosed Order affirms the Yarmouth Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions approving the proposed single family house improvements and mitigation planting. The Department has determined that the Coastal Bank is significant to flood control and storm damage prevention because it acts as a vertical buffer to storm waters. In addition, the Department has determined that the proposed project will not adversely affect the stability of the Coastal Bank in accordance with the performance standard at 310 CMR 10.30(6). In the Department's opinion, the project as proposed and conditioned herein adequately protects the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Please be advised that the Department reserves the right, should there be further proceedings in the This information is available in alternate format. Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper matter, to raise additional issues and present further evidence as may be appropriate. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate -to contact Greg DeCesare at (508) 946-2762. Very truly yours, James Mahala, Chief Wetlands and Waterways Program JM/gj d Enclosure cc: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari c/o Lynne Hamlyn Hamlyn Consulting 690 Thousand Oaks Drive Brewster, MA 02631 Certified Mail #7014 2120 0002 1170 2785 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection —Wetlands WPA Form 5-Superseding Order of Conditions - Affirmation Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information From: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Issuing Authority This issuance is for: ® Superseding Order of Conditions — Affirmation DEP File Number: SE 83 - 2048 To: Applicant: Property Owner (if different from applicant): Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari Name Name 18 Juniper Way Address Address Medway MA 02053 City/Town State Zip Code City/Town State Zip Code 1. Project Location: 188 Berry Ave. Yarmouth Street Address City/Town 16. 52 Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number 2. General Description of Approved Project: Single family house additions, swimming pool, pervious driveway, garage, lawn reduction and replacement with mitigation planting of native salt tolerant species, fencing Page 1 of 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: SE 83 - 2048 Bureau of Resource Protection —Wetlands WPA Form 5-Superseding Order of Conditions -Affirmation Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 3. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (if different from those listed in Order of Conditions): Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue December 21 st, Title 2015 John Z. Demarest, Jr. Signed and Stamped by 4. Date of Issuance: Sf P 16 2016 Certified Mail #7014 2120 0002 1170 2785 B. Findings The Department hereby finds that the project as proposed is approved subject to the following conditions: In accordance with 310 CMR 10.05(7)(i), this Superseding Order of Conditions affirms the Order of Conditions issued by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission on January 15'h, 2016. The Order of Conditions is attached and is incorporated by reference. 1. All work shall comply with the conditions contained in the attached Order of Conditions, subject to the following modifications: a. The work shall comply with the plans referenced in this Superseding Order, if different from those listed in the Order of Conditions. Any change to the plans referenced herein shall require the applicant to inquire of the Department in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. b. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Superseding Order unless otherwise specified below by the Department. c. Requests for extensions in accordance with General Condition #5 shall be submitted to the Department. d. Proof of recording in accordance with General Condition #9 shall be submitted to the Department. e. Requests for a Certificate of Compliance in accordance with General Condition #12 shall be submitted to the Department, and wetland boundary flags shall remain in place pursuant to General Condition #17 until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Department. f. The Department makes no findings and imposes no conditions pursuant to a municipal bylaw or ordinance. Page 2 of 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection °EP File Number: K,y SE 83 - 2048 Bureau of Resource Protection —Wetlands UVPA Form 5-Superseding Order of Conditions - Affirmation Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Issuance Issued by: Department of Environmental Protection SEP 1 6.2016- Signature: James la, Chief, Wetlands & Waterways Program Date Q Appeal Rights and Time Limits The applicant, the landowner, any person aggrieved by the Superseding Order, Determination or other Reviewable Decision as defined at 310 CMR 10.04, who previously participated in the proceedings leading to this Reviewable Decision, the conservation commission, or any ten (10) residents of the city or town where the land is located if at least one resident was previously a participant in the permit proceeding, are hereby notified of their right to appeal this Reviewable Decision pursuant to M.G.L. c.30A, § 10, provided the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, along with the appropriate filing fee and a MassDEP Fee Transmittal Form within ten (10) business days of the date of issuance of this Superseding Order or Determination, and addressed to: Case Administrator Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02108. A copy of the request (hereinafter also referred to as Appeal Notice) shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission, the applicant, the person that requested the Superseding Order or Determination, and the issuing office of the MassDEP at: MassDEP 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA 02347 In the event that a ten resident group requested the Superseding Order or Determination, the Appeal Notice shall be served on the designated representative of the ten resident group, whose name and contact information is included in this Reviewable Decision (when relevant). Page 3of4 Contents of Appeal Notice An Appeal Notice shall comply with the Department's Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 CMR 1.01(6) and 310 CMR 10.05(7)0), and shall contain the following information: (a) the MassDEP Wetlands File Number, name of the applicant, landowner if different from applicant, and address of the project; (b) the complete name, mailing address, email address, and fax and telephone numbers of the party filing the Appeal Notice; if represented by consultant or counsel, the name, fax and telephone numbers, email address, and mailing address of the representative; if a ten residents group, the same information for the group's designated representative; (c) if the Appeal Notice is filed by a ten (10) resident group, then a demonstration of participation by at least one resident in the previous proceedings that led to this Reviewable Decision; (d) if the Appeal Notice is filed by an aggrieved person, then a demonstration of participation in the previous proceeding that lead to this Reviewable Decision and sufficient written facts to demonstrate status as a person aggrieved; (e) the names, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses of all other interested parties, if known; (f) a clear and concise statement of the alleged errors contained in the Department's decision and how each alleged error in inconsistent with 310 CMR 10.00 and does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. c.131, § 40, including reference to the statutory or regulatory provisions that the party filing the Appeal Notice alleges has been violated by the Department's Decision, and the relief sought, including any specific desired changes to the Department's decision; (g) a copy of the Department's Reviewable Decision that is being appealed and a copy of the underlying Conservation Commission decision if the Reviewable Decision affirms the Conservation Commission decision; (h) a statement that a copy of the request has been sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the applicant and the conservation commission; and (i) if asserting a matter that is Major and Complex, as defined at 310 CMR 10.04(1), a statement requesting that the Presiding Officer make a designation of Major and Complex, with specific reasons supporting the request. Filing Fee and Address A copy of the Appeal Notice along with a MassDEP Fee Transmittal Form and a valid check or money order payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) must be mailed to: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commonwealth Master Lockbox P.O. Box 4062 Boston, Massachusetts 02211 The request will be dismissed if the filing fee is not paid, unless the appellant is exempt or granted a waiver. The filing fee is not required if the appellant is a city or town (or municipal agency), county, district of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or a municipal housing authority. The Department may waive the adjudicatory hearing filing fee pursuant to 310 CMR 4.06(2) for a person who shows that paying the fee will create an undue financial hardship. A person seeking a waiver must file an affidavit setting forth the facts believed to support the claim of undue financial hardship together with the hearing request as provided above. Page 4 of 4 J F i JAN 1 9 2016 ' I I C..F_., Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.,c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 A. General Information Please note: Yarmouth this form has 1. From: Conservation Commissior been modified with added 2. This issuance is for space to accommodate (check one): the Registry of Deeds 3. To: Applicant: Requirements Ali and Elaine a. First Name Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. tab reuun Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town a. ®Order of Conditions' b. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions c. Organization 18 Juniper Road d. Mailing Address Medway e. City/Town 4. Property Owner (if different from applicant): a. First Name c. Organization d. Mailing Address e. City/Town 5. Project Location: 188 Berry Ave Bigdeliazari b. Last Name MA f. State b. Last Name f. State Yarmouth a. Street Address b. City/Town 16 52 c. Assessors Map/Plat Number d. Parcel/Lot Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: 41 d38m28s d. Latitude g. Zip Code 70d14m45s e. Longitude wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 1 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File # Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth City/Town A. General Information (cont.) 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for (attach additional information if more than one parcel): Barnstable a. County b. Certificate Number (if registered land) 28486 345 c. Book d. Page 12/22/2015 01 /07/2016 01 /14/2016 7. Dates: a. Date Notice of Intent Filed b. Date Public Hearing Closed c. Date of Issuance 8. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA. 188 Berry Avenue Prepared for Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari Demarest Land Surveying John Demarest Jr b. Prepared By c. Signed and Stamped by December 21, 2015 1 "= 30' d. Final Revision Date e. Scale f. Additional Plan or Document Title g. Date B. Findings 1. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above -referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c. ® Prevention of Pollution d. ❑ Private Water Supply e.❑Fisheries f. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ❑ Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. vvpaform5.doc - rev. 1 f%12/2014 Page 2 of 12 �I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 B. Findings (cont.) Provided by MassDEP SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. C. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a. linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank s. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland s. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding Cubic Feet Flood Storage 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Cubic Feet Flood Storage g. ❑ Riverfront Area Sq ft within 100 ft Sq ft between 100- 200 ft wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 a. ay uaic ,— — a1— . d. ayudic IccL W. ayes— —-'J............. _. - -- - - f. cubic feet g. cubic feet h. cubic feet e. cubic feet a. square feet b. square feet c. cubic feet d. cubic feet e. cubic feet f. cubic feet b. total sq. feet a. total sq. feet c. square feet d. square teet e. square teet j. square feet Page3of12' ? i I i i Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: ILIBureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048' WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File # Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 10. ❑ Designated Port A Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below reas 11. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a. square feet b. square feet 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes 15. ® Coastal Banks 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores 17. ❑ Salt Marshes 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish 20. ❑ Fish Runs 21. ® Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below cu yd cu yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment cu yd cu yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment 20 a. linear feet a. square feet a. square feet a. square feet 20 b. linear feet b. square feet b. square feet c. c/y dredged d. c/y dredged c. square feet d. square feet a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a. c/y dredged b. c/y dredged a. square feet b. square feet wpaform5.doc • rev. 1111212014 Page 4 of 12 * #22. If the project is for the purpose of restoring or enhancing a wetland Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 B. Findings (cont.) 22. ❑ Restoration/Enhancement *: resource area 23• in addition to the square footage that _ has been C. entered in Section B.5.c a. square feet of BVW ❑ Stream Crossing(s): a. number of new stream crossings b. square feet of salt marsh Provided by MassDEP S E 83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth cityfTown b. number of replacement stream crossings General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (BVw) or The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. B.17.c (Salt Marsh) above, 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter the additional re ulator measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. g y amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. The work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. The time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. c. If the work is for a Test Project, this Order of Conditions shall be valid for no more than one year. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. An Order of Conditions for a Test Project may be extended for one additional year only upon written application by the applicant, subject to the provisions of 310 CMR 10.05(11)(f). 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 01 /14/2019 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7 Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to. lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 5 of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or, "MassDEP"] "File Number SE83-2048 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A) to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. wpeform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 6 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth city(rown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. 19. The work associated with this Order (the "Project") (1) ❑ is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards (2) ® is NOT subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards, then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post -construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassQEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as -built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii, any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/1212014 Page 7 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth citylTown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) iv. all post -construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans) approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post -construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party (defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement ("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan") and certifying the following: i.) the 0&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.) the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post -construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi -Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance.. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 8 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 MassDEP File # WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions I Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three (3) consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit (as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): 20. For Test Projects subject to 310 CMR 10.05(11), the applicant shall also implement the monitoring plan and the restoration plan submitted with the Notice of Intent. If the conservation commission or Department determines that the Test Project threatens the public health, safety or the environment, the applicant shall implement the removal plan submitted with the Notice of Intent or modify the project as directed by the conservation commission or the Department. wpaform5.doc • rev. 1111222014 Page 9 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection \ _ Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions I; Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No 2. The Yarmouth hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission a. ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2. Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ® that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Yarmouth Wetland By -Law, Chapter 143 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2. Citation 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): See attached text pages Special Conditions Pages 10A 10B and 10C of 12 wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 10 of 12 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10A OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari . 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 1. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for having a copy of the "Order of Conditions" on the job site at all times and shall be responsible for insuring that all persons performing the permitted activity are fully aware of its terms and conditions. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of these "Orders", a fine or both. 2. The Conservation Commission, its agent(s) or assigned(s) shall have the express right of entry upon the job site at all reasonable times for the purposes of establishing compliance with the "Order of Conditions", "By -Laws" and "Regulations". Commission members and the Conservation Administrator may acquire any information, measurements, photographs, observations and/or materials or may require the submittal of any data/information deemed necessary by this Commission for that evaluation. 3. A preconstruction review shall be arranged by the contractor with the Conservation Administrator and shall occur prior to the commencement of any work. 4. Any change in the approved plan(s) shall require the Applicant to file, in writing, a notice of project change with this Commission. The Commission will determine the significance of the change and determine whether administrative approval or an "Amended Order of Conditions" is required. Should the project be changed without permission, or found by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission to be altered in any way from the approved plan(s), all work will immediately cease until the project is reapproved by the Commission. 5. The "Order of Conditions" is valid for three years from the date of issuance unless otherwise specifically noted in the "Orders". Extension Permit requests must be applied for at least 30 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the original Orders". Failure to do so will result in a new "Notice of Intent" filing. 6. Noncompliance with these conditions shall constitute grounds for an Enforcement Order and possible fines. Fines shall not exceed $300.00 per day/per violation. 7. A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i,e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, silt sacks, products made with rice straw, and other weed -free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. 8. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. 01/15/2016 Page 1 of 3 WPA FORM 5-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 1013 OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. 10. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. 11. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. 12. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 13. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. 14. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. 15. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. 16. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. 17. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 01/15/2016 Page 2 of 3 Ir WPA FORM 5-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10C OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 18. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 19. A stamped "As Built Plan" shall be certified by the Design Engineer (Massachusetts registered Professional Engineer or land Surveyor) and will certify that this project has been completed in accordance with the "Order of Conditions" before a Certificate of Compliance will be issued. The as -built plan shall indicate the structure location, gradients, distances to the resource areas, and other pertinent information described in the application and approved plans. Any deviation from the approved plan shall be identified. 01/15/2016 Page 3 of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions #4, from the date of issuance. Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town t I IS12-01( 1. Date of Issuance L 2. Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested) or hand delivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office, if not filing electronically, and the property owner, if different from applicant. S b' Date ❑ by hand delivery on F. Appeals [yJ by certified mail, return receipt requested, on / Date The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 1-0.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 11 of 12 t Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection \ _ Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions (� Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 G. Recording Information Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted. on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Yarmouth Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission.-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- --------------- To: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: 188 Berry Ave West Yarmouth Project Location Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County for: Property Owner SE83-2048 MassDEP File Number Book and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant Page Page 12 of 12 wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/1212014 i Massachusetts Department of EnvironmeV�La Protection Audica o y Hearing Fee Transmittal Fore IMPORTANT! This form is intended for fee transmittal only. The contents of a request for an adjudicatory appeal (Notice of Claim) are established at 310 CMR 1.01(6) and the substantive statutes and Tegulations governing the Department's action. A. Person/Party Making Request 1. Name and address of person or party making request: important: When filling out forms Name - If appropriate, name group representative on the computer, use only fhe tab key to move your 4 Street Address cursor- do not - use the return City key. 2. Project Information: 4 Street Address City DEP File or ID Number Email Address B. Applicant (if applicable) 1- Name and address of applicant: Name - If appropriate, name group representative Street Address City State State Amount of filing fee attached State Zip Code Zip Code Zip Code Email Address C. Instructions 1. Send this form and check or money order of $100.D0 payable to the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts to the MassDEP Lockbox at: Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 4062 Boston, MA- 02211 2. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with.the Request for Adjudicatory Appeal (Notice of Claim) to: Case Administrator Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 adjherfm.doc • rev. 5113 Adjudicatory Hearing Fee Transmittal Form • Page 1 of 1 BLATMAN, BOBROWSKI, MEAD & TALERMAN, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL J. KENNEFICK Michael@bbmatlaw.com 730 MAIN STREET, SUITE 213 MILLIS, MA 02054 PHONE 508.376.8400 FAX 508.376.8440 July 11, 2015 Barnstable District Court 3195 Main Street P.O. Box 427 Barnstable, MA 02630 RE: Michael Durkin, Trustee, et ano v. Yarmouth Conservation Commission No.16-25-CV-000031 Dear Sir/Madam: Concord Office 9 DAMONMILL SQUARE, SUITE 4A4 CONCORD, MA 01742 PHONE 978.371.2226 FAX 978.371.2296 Newburyport Office 30 GREEN STREET NEWBURYPORT, MA 01950 PHONE 978.463.7700 FAX 978.463.7747 Yarmouth Conservation Commission JUL 18 2016 RECEIVED Enclosed please find our Notice of Appearance on behalf ofthe defendant, Yarmouth Conservation Commission. Thank you for your kind assistance regarding this matter. Sincerely, Michael J. Kennefick cc: Douglas A. Robertson, Esquire Jean L. R. Kampas, Esquire Conservation Commission .` COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT BARNSTABLE DIVISION C.A. No. 16-25-CV-000031 MICHAEL DURKIN and JANET DURKIN, as ) Trustees of the DURKIN TRUST, ) Plaintiffs ) V. 1 YARMOUTH CONSERVATION COMMISSION,) Defendants ) APPEARANCE Kindly enter our appearance for the defendant, Yarmouth Conservation Commission. S" Dated: / 0 The Defendant, Yarmouth Conservation Commission, Jason R. Talerman (BBO # 567927) Michael J. Kennefick (BBO # 648004) Blatman, Bobrowski, Mead & Talerman, LLC 730 Main Street, Suite 2B Millis, MA 02054 Tel. (508) 376-8400 Fax (508) 376-8440 iay(2a,bbmatiaw.com michael@bbm.atlaw.com I, Michael J Kennefick, parties of record this day c CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that I have f X./I 2016. served copies of the foregoing on all Michael J. Kennefick � _,;�„ `, o' ro `^�° x S 2 :: m o ram—" 0-- 3 or `� �_� v x N 3 m o Q 0 m A n m p� N N 3 N c J N i n p d3 02oaz�.3 --'�c F i -°- TQ�On' m w ZIA �A .. •< o of � p O / m / � I / ' 1 N� d _ 1 - Ni Q - 1 I y A > pY 1 3 0 N 'o o 1 1 o � o ' N 1 19 p ON A '9 1w a a 1 a S 1 d 1 �w F -0 I ti I 1 RIMm i ,_ A 1 T N Ot Z ZOO _ O / 2 the Lewis Bay Estuary, and land containing Wildlife Habitat (M.G.L.c. 131 §40 para. 14 and 310 CMR 10.24). The property is still subject to the November 18, 1994, SOC, File No. SE 83-1286, (copy enclosed) regarding a prior proposed addition, which, at para. 11, required the lowest floor to be elevated to or above base flood elevation 10. In accordance with M.G.L.c. 131 §40, the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") is concerned with flood control, storm damage prevention, protection of ground water supply, pollution prevention and protection of Wildlife Habitat. 310 CMR 10.30 required the Yarmouth Conservation Commission ("Commission") to make a written determination whether the Coastal Bank is important to flood control and/or storm damage prevention. The Commission made no such determination before issuing the Order of Conditions ("OOC"). To assess flood control and storm damage prevention, the Commission needed to know if the proposed reconstruction and additions would be above, or below, the expected 100 year Base Flood Elevation ("BFE"). In Yarmouth, the Building Department makes such determinations. (See Yarmouth Zoning Regulations 201.4 and 403). However, the Yarmouth Building Department has never made such a determination. To make such a determination requires determination of the BFE for the property and determination of whether the existing structure and renovations and additions must meet the existing Building Code. Under 44 CFR 59, a "development permit" is required, because the property is located in a flood plain and in a special flood hazard area ("SFHA"). The entire 1.2 acre property is land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ("LSCSF"), therefore the portion of the Notice of Intent saying only 5600 square feet was LSCSF is wrong. The entire 1.2 acre property is also a SFHA. No "development permit" issued for this project. FEMA 480, February 2005 at pp. 5-21, requires that a "development must not increase the flood hazard on other properties." The Commission made no such determination before issuing the OCC. FEMA 480, at pp. 5-23, requires a "no rise" certification from a registered professional engineer. No such certification was presented to the Commission. The Commission also did not address the existing November 18, 1994 SOC, or the Certificate of Compliance under M.G.L.c. 131 §40 dated April 18, 2000, that states only the septic work complied with the November 18, 1994 SOC. Substantially improved structures must be protected from the expected BFE. FEMA 480 at pp. 5-27, and FEMAP-758, May 2010. 44 CFR 60.3(c)(2) requires the lowest floor (see illustration enclosed)(including basement) be elevated to or above the BFE. The BFE, for an AE zone along the coast is .4 feet above the BFE on the FIRM map. FEMA 480, at pp. 4-6. Thus, the proposed reconstruction and additions must have a lowest floor at or above 11.4 feet. The Notice of Intent ("NOI") site plan does not show a lowest floor height, does not say the existing building has a basement full of utilities and HVAC equipment, but rather, only shows a top of foundation height of 11.1 feet. The Commission issued the OCC without first asking the Yarmouth Building Department, if it had done the calculations required by FEMA 480, at pp. 8-4, and in FEMAP-758, May, 2010, to determine if the proposed renovations exceeded 50% of the value of the existing structure. The Yarmouth Building Department never followed the FEMA 480 regulations at 8-4 to 8-17. The assessed value of the structure was $397,300 according to the Yarmouth tax assessment. The land was assessed at $1,078,400. The current owner bought the structure and land for $1,570,000 on November 3, 2014. The structure was built in 1934. FEMA 480, at 8-6 requires use of the building's "market value". Based on the tax assessment and sale price, the building was worth $400,000 to $500,000 dollars. On January 13, 2016 the general contractor delivered the building owner a proposal for the renovations, which would cost $734,335.00 (copy attached). This amount exceeds the market value by 183% to 196%, well over the 50% threshold. Moreover, the proposed renovation to "common walls", kitchen, and the second story addition (see FEMA 480, at 8-10, 8-14) all trigger the requirement that the lowest floor of the entire structure be renovated to the current Building Code at or above BFE 11.4. The existing basement will need to be filled. (FEMA 480, at 8-11). Moreover, the existing SOC requires the lowest floor level to be at or above the BFE, which is now 11.4, per the July 16, 2014 FEMA/FIRM mapping. The Commission did not address the existing, prior SOC which applies to the current renewed request for an addition. The Commissioner's failure to require the applicant to submit a proposed renovation that is fully compliant with FEMA 480, FEMAP-758, and Yarmouth's own Zoning Codes, and the existing November 18, 1994 SOC, leave the abutters unable to determine what will be built and whether it will increase the flood hazard on the abutter's property. Thus, the DEP's interest in flood control is squarely implicated and the impact of the project is unknowable. Likewise, storm damage prevention is implicated and unknowable, since debris from the applicant's house would likely wash onto the abutter's property, including pollution from basement utility systems and stowed products, if the proposed project is not elevated at or above the BFE of 11.4. Finally, the DEP has an interest in enforcing the existing SOC for this property. The attached letter of Wetland and Wildlife Biologist, C. Diane Boretos, PWS, establishes that the Coastal Bank and Coastal Beach are wildlife habitat protected by 130 §40, para. 14 and 310 CMR 10.24. The applicant's plan to dig up, plant grass and put up a fence, in this area, will disturb and disrupt the wildlife habitat. Additionally, M.G.L.c. 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.05 (4)(e) require, prior to filing a Notice of Intent, that permits be obtained, which are "feasible to obtain." See Conservation Commission of Brockton v. Department of Environmental Protection, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 601, 608 (2012). The site plan submitted with the NOI states the septic system location is uncertain and that it may be relocated. The shown leaching area is under land at elevation 10 and 11. However, the location of the existing system is clearly shown on the June 14, 1994 plan, copy attached. That plan shows a 5.28' separation of the septic system from ground water, assuming the ground water is at 120". 4 A percolation test on August 19, 2010 on the adjacent upland property (15 Lewis Bay Boulevard) found the ground water elevation at 114". (copy enclosed). The September 2, 2014 Title 5 Certificate, at pg. 16, (copy enclosed), found the bottom of the leaching field at 6.5. The presumed ground water elevation was 9.0' with a 2.2' adjustment. The most recent measurement, at 1141, or 9.5', puts the current leaching field 3' from the ground water. This violates Title 5. Before submitting the NOI, no septic permit was sought from the Yarmouth Health Department. Such a permit, showing the location and size of the system suitable for the proposed project, or the proposed reuse of the existing system, should have been obtained prior to NOI. 310 CMR 15.00 governs, and 310 CMR 15.212-15.215 dictates elevating tanks above flood ways where feasible, achieving 4-5 foot separation from ground water where elevation is not feasible, and ensuring septic waste does not pollute an adjacent Estuary, here, Lewis Bay. If ground water is at 114" below the existing system, it is too low to reuse. Given the "substantial improvement" of the subject structure, the septic system must be fully complaint with current regulations. Given the surface elevation, location of the subsurface system, required separation to ground water, and the ground water elevation, it is quizzical how an underground system could be approved for 188 Berry Avenue. The NOI acted on by the Commission provides no assurance to an abutter, like the Durkins, that during the expected 100 year storm, the septic system for 188 Berry Avenue, presently under land with a surface elevation of 10-11, with seemingly three feet of separation from the subsurface ground water, will do anything other than leak, spreading septic waste onto the abutter's property and into the Estuary. This is unacceptable. Conspicuously absent from the NOI is any letter from a certified Hydrologist, stating the system will not leak during a 100 year storm, or that the system complies with the current requirements. For the above stated reasons, and the reasons set forth in our request for a Superseding Order Of Conditions, and given the existing November 18, 1994 SOC which still govern, the abutters, the Durkins, respectfully request that the January 15, 2016 Order of Conditions be annulled, and the proposed project described in the NOI be rejected. Very truly yours, Douglas A. Robertson DAR:Imd Enclosures -2- The enclosed Superseding Order contains conditions which in the opinion of the. Department adequately protect the interests of the Act. In the opinion of the Department, the reasons given here are sufficient to justify this Superseding Order of Conditions. However, the Department reserves the right, should there be further proceedings in this matter, to raise additional issues and present further evidence as may be appropriate. If you have any questions concerning this Superseding Order of Conditions, please contact Chris Ross at (508)946-2813. Very truly yours, C. Elitabeth A. Kouloheras, Chief {'-- Wetlands Section K/CR/ljr Enclosure cc: Conservation Commission 1146 Route 28 S. Yarmouth, MA 02664 Dorothy M. Girouard 32 A Worthen Road 13 Lexington, MA 02173 Edgar F. & .Blanche C. Greeney 188 Berry Avenue W. Yarmouth, MA 02673 CERTIFIED MAIL #Z 276 549 815 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Donald W. Moncevicz, PE 40 Pond Street W. Dennis, MA 02670 Atty.. Matthew J. Dupuy 25 Mid -Tech Drive, Suite 6 W. Yarmouth, MA 02673 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 CHARLES P. REIDY, 111 WWW.MMMK.COM DANIEL J. GRIFFIN, JR. PAUL R. KEANE PAUL M. McTAGUE EDWARD F. MAHONEY DOUGLAS A. ROBERTSON* KEVIN C. REIDY STEPHEN M. O'SHEA' JENNIFER E. KOGAN ROBERT E. BURGESS " SARAH ANN GREENHALGH JOAN F. RENEHAN JENNIFER A. CREEDON +! DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANE M. GAZDAI Sent Via Email And First Class Mail Mr. Gregory DeCesare Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection Southeast Region -Main Office 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 gregory.decesare@state.ma.us Ms. Lynne Hamlyn 690 Thousand Oaks Drive Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 lhamlyn@capecodwetlands. com March 8, 2016 SENIOR COUNSEL RAYMOND J. KENNEY. JR. EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-198B) HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1938-1999) CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1985) • ALSO ADMITTED IN CA ! ALSO ADMITTED IN CT • ALSO ADMITTED IN NH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RI Ms. Kelly Grant Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth 1146 Route 28 So. Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664-4492 kgrant@yarmouth. ma.us Re: DEP File# SE83-2048, Still Subject to prior SOC, File No. SE 83-1286 dated November 18, 1994 Locus: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA Request for Superseding Order Of Conditions Dear Mr. DeCesare, Ms. Grant and Ms. Hamlyn: As discussed at the February 24, 2016 site meeting, I submit this additional information, in supplementation of our Request for Superseding Order of Conditions ("SOC"). The property involves a number of resource areas, including a Coastal Bank (310 CMR 10.30), Coastal Beach (310 CMR 10.27) land subject to coastal storm flowage (310 CMR 10.04 and 10.24) a special flood hazard area (310 CMR 10.04 and FEMA/FIRM MAP 25001CO588J, effective July 16, 2014) land at zone AE (EL 11), as shown on panel 588, a limit of moderate wave action area at the intersection of zones AE 12 and AE 11, as shown on panel 588, land bordering At14 PERCOLATION TEST LOG Time:0 Lot ISO. /Street: / S D tie;:;, lQ_ Engineer: Health Agent: Expansion Area:Yes: No: Suitable/Su urface Sewage:Yes:—No:_ Expansion Area Tested:Yes:�No: Leaching F'eld:_Pits:_Trenches:� If No —Why? Unsui tab? :Why? Well: 'Town Water: Subdivision/Owners ame: __ __ 2 Sketch: CsM'�I Notes it II a Water At: 1 1;,V. 4 ij (a ir»w CA OIL �••i�1yi ��. 1�1 �+ s�yi N • r s r 65. n LEWIS BAY BUILDERS 72 PINE CONE DRIVE WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673 STEVE HETZEL-OWNER (508) 259-5252 Construction Proposal January 13, 2o16 Bigdeliazari Residence,188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA, o2-673 January 13, 2016 Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth, MA 02673 Dear Ali and Elaine, It is with great pleasure that I submit the following Construction Proposal to undertake the permitting, demolition, and re -building of your existing home, new garage and family room addition at 188 Berry Avenue per plans submitted by Gary Ellis dated 12/16/2015. 1 will be your sole contact and will manage the process from demolition to completion and acceptance of the completed project. This proposal covers all construction materials and labor required for the project per final layout drawings submitted by Gary Ellis. All work to be performed will conform to 780 CMR Massachusetts State Building Code, Eighth Edition and will comply with the Conservation Order of Conditions. This Contract includes labor and materials for all of the following aspects of this project: o Demolition and Disposal of all construction material waste per permit and Conservation. o Electric and water disconnect and reconnect o Connection of new natural gas service o Excavation, backfill and re -grading of land o Portable toilet - including weekly cleaning and removal at end of project o Concrete footings, foundation and floor- including waterproofing o Frame, "B" grade natural white cedar siding, and Lifetime Architectural shingles o Electrical - per code o Plumbing - per code o Insulation - Per code o Flooring- Install new hardwood flooring with customer preference materials NOTE: There Is no provision for materials or labor to replace sub flooring or level floors if they are out of level after existing hardwood flooring is removed. Change order will be issued if required. o New bath and laundry areas to be tiled with customer preference materials o Interior ceiling and walls - Blue boarded and covered with a smooth plaster skim coat except in closets where there will be a light texture plaster coat o All interior trim, doors and hardware purchased and installed per customer preferences o Paint- Exterior trim to be painted. Interior colors to be determined at later date. All interior trim will be spray painted to provide a smooth professional quality feel. Walls and Ceilings will be painted with latex paint and conform to Construction Specifications. o All materials will meet or exceed current code requirements Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 2 Category Estimated Costs 1. Site Preparation Building Permit Dumpsters (4) ExcavationBackfrlVRough Grade Existing Driveway material removal, grade and installation of t base material (included) Foundation - Addition and Garage Concrete Floor - Garage and Addition Port a Potty Subtotal $44,650 2. Framing Removal of sunporch and misc. interior wall demo and second floor ceiling demo Framing Labor - includes all window and slider installation and exterior trim Framing Materials Steel Beams in Garage -Allowance Need more structural specs from Gary Subtotal $188,800 2A. Fireplace New wood burning fireplace built in family room - Allowance - need material specs $5,000 Chimney/Flu for fireplace - Allowance $10,000 Convert Existing fireplace to gas in master bedroom - Allowance. need specs for unit $3,500 Subtotal $18,500 3. Siding Strip Existing House New Siding Materials - White Cedar Shingles for new and Existing House New Siding labor Subtotal $44,350 4. Roofing Strip and Re -Shingle Existing House - Labor - Option Existing House Roof Materials (Architectural) - Option Roofing Labor Roofing Materials (Architectural ) Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence page 3 Rubber Roof Labor Rubber Roof Materials Subtotal $28,100 5. Windows and Exterior Doors Windows and Sliders Replacement - Existing Windows - Allowance $7,000 Exterior Thermatru Entry Doors (3) Garage Overhead Doors (3), Openers - Allowance $6,000 Sub Total Windows $69,415 6. Electrical System New 200 Amp Service to accommodate pool and possible backup generator, remove all old Wring from basement and first floor - Need more electrical requirement specs Smoke and Heat Detectors $34,000 Sub total 7. Plumbing/HVAC System Labor and Materials to install new plumbing fixtures and new hot water tank New furnaces, AC and all duct work Sub total $71,000 8. Insulation Blown in insulation for existing walls Basement for first floor Existing attic spray with fire retardant paint and open cell foam to accommodate upstairs furnace New Addition and Garage walls and ceiling Sub total $30,320 9. Blue board and Plaster Blue Board and Smooth Plaster - Materials and Labor Sub total $26,000 Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 4 10. Interior Doors/Trim/Millwork - Kitchen New Interior Doors Trim & Millwork Materials, including stair parts Trim & Millwork Installation including stairs Hardware for all doors Sub total $28,500 11. Flooring Tile floor materials - Allowance Tile floor installation - Master/New Lav/2nd floor exist/2nd floor new Hardwood Floor (Existing removal) Hardwood Floor Material Allowance (Est 4,550 Sq./Ft) Hardwood Floor Installation and refinishing Sub total $47,200 12. Paint, Exterior Gutters Exterior paint, materials and labor Interior paint, materials and labor Gutters/Downspouts Sub Total $25,000 13. Landscaping Driveway - Stone and Shell Cobblestone Apron Final grade Loam and Seed Sub total $22,000 New House Total $659,335 General Contracting Fee $75,000 Total $734,335 Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 5 Allowances Allowances for all customer specific materials and items without specifications supplied have been included where noted in pricing, Labor to install all plumbing fixtures, electrical appliances and all cabinetry is included. Proiect Timeline Goals Demolition to begin as soon as permit is issued. Estimated production time to be approximately 5 months to complete. Currently, projected Permit issuance date is 1/29/2016. Completion date projected is 6/30/2016. Due to previous winter's blizzard, if a similar storm affects production, there may be time added to completion date. We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor complete in accordance with the above specifications and conform to 780 CMR Massachusetts State Building Code, Eighth Edition. • All material is guaranteed as specified by manufacturer/supplier. • All work to be guaranteed for one year after certificate of occupancy has been issued. • All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. • Any alterations or deviations from the supplied final plans that involve extra costs exceeding $1,000 will be issued a change order and added or subtracted from this proposal and billed accordingly. • All sub -contractors will provide liability insurance and workman's comp as required bylaw • All sub -contractor's invoices to be reviewed and approved by General Contractor only prior to submission to client for payment • Contractor to provide owner with weekly upcoming schedule of payments and requirements for customer supplied materials (appliances, lights, plumbing fixtures, etc.) • Upon completion of the project, punch list items will be itemized and a value applied to hold back against final payments for each sub -contractor if necessary. • All pricing for materials is based on plans submitted, checked for accuracy and are for budget purposes only. Actual material prices will be invoiced and copies will be provided for all purchase. Respectfully submitted by Steve Hetzel, January 13, 2016 Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 6 The total cost of above project is: $734,335 Terms: General Contractor - $15,000 deposit to be paid upon contract signing. $12,500 monthly draw will be due on first Friday of each month, beginning the first month after project begins. Any unpaid balance will be due upon acceptance of project by client. Sub -Contractors and Material Purchases - Deposits may be required for some materials and sub -contractors with interim progress payments to be made prior to completion of work. Payments are due upon request from General Contractor for all submitted/approved invoices. Acceptance -The above prices, specifications, services and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to begin permitting as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. Owner - Date of Acceptance: Owner Signature: General Contractor- Date of Acceptance: General Contractor Signature: Lewis Bay Builders - Bigdeliazari Residence Page 7 Owner kftm etion is reiukW for evoy page. Important Men Mft out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. Q r,,t•" J `� L,uVt_ CommOrtwealth of Massachusetts g� Q g � S!,4 Title 5 Official Inspection Form HEALTH v P�� Subsurface Sewage Iftposai System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 - 'P 10. arty Address- owners Name 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 CKWOM State Zip Code Deb of Inspection inspection results must be submitted on this form. Inspection forums may not be altered in any wry. Please No connpleteness checklist at the and of the form. A. General information 1. Inspector. Troy Wiliiams Name of Inspector Troy Williams Septic InspectionCOMPOny Nome 19 Hummel Drive South Dennis MA 02660 Crty/rown sub zip Code �5(>8) 385 -1300 S1682 Telephone Number License Number B. Certification I certify that I have personally inspected the sewage disposal system at this address and that the information reported below is true, aocurate and complete as of the time of the Inspection. The inspection was performed based on my training and experience in the proper function and maintenance of on site sewage disposal systems. I am a DEP approved system inspector pursuant to Section 15- W of Tide 5 (310 CUR 15.000). The system: ® Passes . ❑ Conditionally Passes ❑ Fails ❑ Needs Further Evaluation by the Local Approving Authority s ,,�, September 2, 2014 Date The system inspector shall submit a copy of this inspection report to the Approving Authority (Board of Health or DEP) within 30 days of completing this inspection. if the system is a shared system or has a design flow of 10,000 gpd or greater, the inspector and the system owner shall submit the report to the appropriate regional office of the DEP. The original should be sent to the system owner and copies sent to the buyer, if applicable, and the approving authority. ""'This report only desoribes conditions at the time of inspection and under the conditions of use at that time. This inspection does not address how the system w111 perform In the future under the same or different conditions of use. ft s- 3M3 TpM S Of♦AW su9 IN FOmI &ta 1*M B Os Pop" SyMMn - Paps t or 17 Commonwealth of Massachuseft Title 5 Official inspection Form Subwrface Sewage Disposal Syst M Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Barry Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greeney Owner Owner's Name information is 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 Sepbemlber 2, 2014 MQUftd for every city/rown State Zip Cods Sim of hispedion pe". B. Certification (cont.) Inspection Summary Check A,B,C,D or E / Sh"yo complete an of Sect D A) System Passes: ® 1 have not found any information which indicates that any of the falurs criteria described in 310 CMR 15.303 or in 310 CMR 15.304 exist Any failure criteria not evaluated are indicated below. Comments: System meets minimum standards set by Massachusetts DEP at the time of WAPedion only.This Inspection is not a guarantee or warranty on the future working condition$ of leaching, tom, components or the future structural integrity of said components and only mepresecats conditions found at the time of inspection only. B) System Conditionally Passes: ❑ One or more system components as described in ft "Conditions! Pass' section need to be replaced or repaired. The system, upon completion of the reph osment or repair, as approved by the Board of Health, will pass. Check the box for "yes", "no' or "not determined' (Y. N. ND) for the following stelemerds. If "not determined," Please explain. The septic tank is metal and over 20 years okr or the septic tank (whew maul or not) is structurally unsound, exhibits substantial ircittratiom or exCrltrabon or tartk falure is ImmirMt System will Pass inspection if the existing tank is replaced with a com* tg septic tank as approved by the Board of Health. ' A metal septic tank will pass inspection if it is structurally sound, not leaking and if a CerWk** of Compliance indicating that the tank is we than 20 years old is available. ❑ Y ® N ❑ ND (E)plain below): t5m - arts Tift 3 o e YMO� Fm sue.0 m s.wsp OYpoal ftow • Popp 2 4117 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Bevy Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Propeft AddAes Claire Greeney OMW Owr> * Name ftmnow is nquhed for every 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 Pape. City/Town state zip code Data of Irapecdw B. Certification (cont.) ❑ Pump Chamber pumps/alarms not operational. System will pass with Board of Health approval if pumps/alarms are repaired. B) System Conditionally Passes (cont.): ❑ Observation of sewage backup or break out or high static water level in the distribution box due to broken or obstructed pipe(*) or due to a broken, settled or uneven distribution box. System will pass inspection if (with approval of Board of Health): ❑ ❑ ❑ broken pipe(s) are replaced obstruction is removed distribution box is leveled or replaced ❑ Y ❑ Y ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ N ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ The system required pumping more than 4 times a year due to broken or obstructed pipe(s). The system will pass inspection If (with approval of the Board Of Health): ❑ broken pipe(s) are replaced ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below): ❑ obstruction is removed ❑ Y ❑ N ❑ ND (Explain below). C) Further Evaluation is Required by the Board of Health: ❑ Conditions exist which require further evaluation by the Board of Health in order to determine if the system is fatting to protect public health, safety or the environment. 1. System will pass unless Board of Health determines in accordance with 310 CMR 15.303(1)(b) that the system is not functioning in a manner which will protect public health, satiety and the environment: ❑ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a surface water ❑ Cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a salt marsh tft • Wb Tits 6 OM,' I pcbon F mr 8ubsvfioe 8swq OWpaW SyNRn • Pps 9 d 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Asseesrants P- Claire Gre M Owner Owners Name infoM At1M is 188 Be" Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2 2014 required for every Stele Zip code Dow or kwr�m*m page. aRf Wn B. Certification (cunt.) 2. system wilt fall unless the Bored of heath (arid Public Water Supper, a any) determines that the system is functioning In a Inseener that protects the Public health, safety and environment: ❑ The system has a septic tank and soil absorption system (SAS) and the SAS is within 100 feet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface water Supply- [] The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within a Zone 1 of a public water supply. ❑ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is within 50 fset of a private weber supply well. ❑ The system has a septic tank and SAS and the SAS is Was than 100 feet but 50 feet or more from a private water supply well". Method used to determine distance: '- This system passes d the well water analysis, performed at a DEP certified laboratory, for fecal conform bacteria indicates absent and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen Is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provided that no other failure criteria are triggered. A copy of the analysis must be attached to this form. 3. Other. D) System Failure Criteria Applicable to AN Systetet: You must indicate "Yes" or" tW to each of the foNowing for 21 irwpectloft: Yes No ❑ ® gaup of age intro faculty or system component due to overloaded or clogged SAS or cesspool Discharge or ponding of effluent to the surface of the ground or surface waters ❑ ® due to an overloaded Or clogged SAS Or cesspool ❑ ® Static liquid level in the distribution box above outlet ~ due to an overloaded or dogged SAS or cesspool ❑ ® Liquid casspooi is less than 6' below invert or avallable volume is less Om-W3 TObO&Wr0WSWXANfW9MWP�eSpVM-PW4d17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greeney Owner owners Name ra equWfor every 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 required for Pa". Cih►Rown Stay Zip Code Date of Irepedion B. Certification (cant.) _ _ Yes No ❑ ® Required pumping more than 4 times in the last year NGT due to cogged or obstructed pipe(s). Number of times pumped: ❑ ® Any portion of the SAS, cesspool or privy is below high ground water elevation. ❑ ® Any portion of cesspool or privy is within 100 feet of a surface water supply or tributary to a surface water supply. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within a Zone 1 of a public well. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is within 50 feet of a private water supply well. ❑ ® Any portion of a cesspool or privy is less than 100 feet but grater than 50 feet from a private water supply well with no acceptable water quality analysis. [This system passes N the well water analysis, performed at a DEP c wUflod laboratory, for focal coliform bacteria indicates absent and the presence of ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nlitrogen Is equal to or less than 5 ppm, provWed that no other failure criteria are triggered. A copy of the analysis and chain of custody must be attached to this form.] ❑ ® The system is a cesspool serving a facility with a design flow of 2000gpd- 10,000gpd. ❑ ® The system hi . I have determined that one or more of the above failure criteria Brost as described in 310 CMR 15.303, therefore the system fans. The system owner should contact the Board of Health to determine what will be necessary to correct the failure. E) Large Systems: To be considered a flame system the system must serve a facility with a design flow of 10AW gpd to 15,000 gpd. For large systems, you must indicate eittw'yes' or Ono' to each of the following, in addition to the questions in Section D. Yes No ❑ ❑ the system is within 400 feet of a surface drinking water supply ❑ ❑ the system is within 200 feet of a tributary to a surface drinking water supply ❑ ❑ the system is boated in a nitrogen sensitive area .(interim Wellhead Protection Area — IWPA) or a mapped Zone It of a public water supply well If you have answered 'yes' to any question in Section E the system is considered a significant threat, or answered `yes' in Section D above the large system has failed. The owner or operator of any large system considered a significant threat under Section E or failed under Section D shall upgrade the system in accordance with 310 CMR 15.304. The system owner should contact the appropriate regional office of the Department. 15ft • W TNr 5 01ftW r.paoa, Far: suow.ao.9w 0 o;went ewrm • PW 5 d 17 & Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form 1WSubsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 B Avenue West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Pwpsrty Address Claire Greene owner owner's Name infom allm is I W Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02573 Sootembsr 2, 2014 required for every s� Zip Cods Dab of impecion page. C. Checklist Check if the fallowing have been done. You must Indicate `des' or OrW as to each of the following: Yes No ® ❑ Pumping iWiormation was provided by the owner, occupant; or Board of Health ❑ ® Were any of the system components Pumped our in the previous two weeks? ® ❑ Has the system received normal floors in the previous two week period? ❑ ® Have large volumes of water been introduced to the system recently or as part of this Inspection? Were as built plans of the system obtained and examined? (If they were not ® ❑ available note as WA) ® ❑ Was the facility or dw Mg inspected for signs of sewage back up? ® ❑ Was the site inspected for signs of break out? ® 0 Were su system components, excluding the SAS, located on site? ® ❑ Were the septic tank manholes uncovered, opened, and the interior of the tank inspected for the condition of the baffles w less, material of construction, dimensions, depth of liquid, depth of sludge &-A depth of scum? Was the facility owner (and occupants If dMiersM from owner) provided with ® ❑ information on the proper maintenance of subsurface sewage disposal systems? The afros and location of the SoN Absorption System (SAS) on the site has been determined based on: IS ❑ Existing iMonrsition. For example, a plan at the Board of Health. ® ❑ Determined in the fleid (I any of the failure criteria related do Part C is at issue approximation of distance is unacceptable) I310 CMR %302(5)j D. System Information Residential Flaw CondRioms: Number of bedrooms (design): 7 Number of bedrooms (actuaq: 6 DESIGN flow based on 310 CMR 15.203 (for example:110 gpd x * of bedrooms): 770 uft-area nr.somasIrn.aYonraecswa.t.s...o.oraowsr. sa�� COmmonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form subsurface sewage Disposal Sy"em Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments rue, West Yarmouth P""Addlen M 16 P 16 owner Claim Greenov Mfamatan is owner's Nwne MOW fbr every 18SElerwAvAnins West Y.&mouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 Paps- %,"I I Pan Stabs Zip Code gabs of bropecion D. System Infonnation Description: Number of cunent residents: 1 Does residence have a garbage grinder? ❑ Yes ® No Is laundry on a separats sewage system? (include laundry system inspection information in this report.) ❑ Yes ® No Laundry system inspected? ® Yes ❑ No Seasonaluse? ❑ Yes ® No Water meter readings, if available (last 2 years usage (gpd)): 13=76,000 gals. Detail: 12=91,000 gals. Sump pump? ❑ Yes ® No Last date of occupancy: occupied Date CommMciaUlndusbial Flow CondMons: Type of Establishment: N/A Design flow (based on 310 CMR 15.203): NIA Gallons per day cam) Basis of design flow (seats/persons/sq.ft., ems.): WA Grease trap present? ❑ Yes ❑ No Industrial waste holding tank present? ❑ Yes ❑ No Non -sanitary waste discharged to the Title 5 system? ❑ Yes ❑ No Water meter readings, if available: NIA 6Rs • 3M3 rra 5 olRor kuacllon FWM- &Ibarft= St Q nkpow t . Paw 7 of 17 COMMOnvipagm of Massachusetts Title 5 official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Pam Not for Volwury AwwMMft M-1e P-is 188 ryAvenue, West Yarmouth Property Address Claire GreeneY Owner Owner's Nerve 2, 2014 MA information is 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth Mp co e nom or haes v+ required for every Ci�rlTowvn State Code page. D. System Information (cons) WA Last date of occupancy/use: Do" Other (describe below): NIA General Infonnstion Pumping Records: Source of information: Was system pumped as part of the inspection? if yes, volume pumped: How was quantity pumped determined? Reason for pumping: r�., nueneirre info was available. OEM" o mi--4 10 Type of System: ® Septic tank, distribution box, soil absorption system 0 Single cesspool [] Overflow cesspool 0 Privy [] Shared system (yea or no) (if Yes, attach previous "Pe Cdon records, if any) Innovative/AfMrnsthm tschnOlWY- Attach a Copy of the csntr3nt operation and maintenance contract (to be obtained from system owrter) and a copy of latest inspection of the UA system by system operator under contract [] Tight tank. Attach a copy of the DEP appr"- other (describe): rsosCM,, rrP Famtee«.Mo.s.ws.owoowSysom-p asarr Sm-3M3 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Semi Avenue West Yarmouth M 16 P 16 Property Address --- Owner Claire Greeney ifonnation is Owner's Name wed for enn, 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 P"s. Cftyyrrown state ZIP Code Doe of inspection D. System Information (cunt.) Approximate age of all components, date installed (if known) and source of information: Tank, d-box and leaching were installed on 6/19/96 per compliance Were sewage odors detected when arriving at the site? Building Sewsr (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: Material of construction: ❑ cast iron ® 40 PVC ❑ other (explain): Distance from private water supply well or suction line: W+ feet Comments (on condition of joints, venting, evidence of leakage, etc.): Lines were found clear at the time of inspection Septic Tank (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: Material of construction: ® concrete ❑ metal If tank is metal, list age: 2Z with riser to 6" feet ❑ fiberglass ❑ polyethylene ❑ other (explain) Is age confirmed by a Certificate of Compliance? (attach a copy of certificate) ❑ Yes ❑ No Dimensions: 2000 gallon Sludge depth: t5in -3M3 4" TWO 5 OftW &UPP - FWK &bWft= SwwP OaporM 5YOW . f e 9 0117 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface sewage Disposal System► Form - Nat far voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Property Address Claire Greeney Owner Owner's Name infaff nad0n to 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2. 2014 requAed for eves Cly town stab Zip Cods Date of kOPOCON Pop. D. System Information (cont.) Septic Tank (coat.) Distance from top of sludge to bottom of outlet We or baffle Scum thickness Distance from top of scum to top of outlet tee or baffle Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle How were dimensions determined? X 8" none 6" 14" probe/measun�d Comments (on pumping reoommendations, inlet and outlet tee or baffle condition, Structural integrity, liquid levels as related to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.): Pvc inlet and outlet tees were found present and in workhtg order. No evidence of leakage or damage was found Tank was not in need of pumping at this time. Grease Trap (locate on site plan): Depth below grade: Material of construction: ❑ concrete ❑ metal ❑ flber'glass Dimensions: Scum thickness Distance from top of scum to top of outlet We or baffle Distance from bottom of scum to bottom of outlet tee or baffle Date of last pumping: NIA feet ❑ pohmylene ❑ other (explain): NIA WA WA WA WA t5ft • 8n3 Tw s OPkW Yrap�cfon Fomr sueasho. s.wo. rwoo+s eyr.m • vpr �o ar i� :L'\ Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage Disposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 BerN Avenue, W09 Yarmouth M 16 P 16 Property Add M Owner Claire Greene j irMomudion is Owner's Name requhed for every. 1 Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 pegs. CKyRown State Zip Code Date an Inspection D. System Information (cons) Comments (on pumping recommendations, inlet and outlet tee or baffle condition, structural integrity, liquid levels as roWW to outlet invert, evidence of leakage, etc.): Tight or Holding Tank (tank must be pumped at time of inspection) (kxAte on site plan): Depth below grade: NIA Material of construction: ❑ concrete ❑ metal ❑ fiberglass ❑ polyethylene ❑ other (explain): Dimensions: NIA Capacity: N/A . sins Design Flow. NIA gallons per day Alarm present: ❑ Yes ❑ No Alarm level: WA Alann 1^ working order: ❑Yes ❑ No Date of last pumping: N/A Date Cornmerrts (condition of alarm and float switches, etc.): N/A * Attach OOpY of current pumping contract (required). Is copy attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No t5 is-3H3 TNN 5 I Farm wrrao* Ste0 ONpoW %aw • pGW 1 / Or 17 Commonwealth of Mas"Chusatba Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurface Sewage DisPosai "Stam worm - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M-16 P-18 PM*rty Address Claire Greeney owner owners Name 2, 2014 infonutMon is 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02873 5ecbemb�' required for every •— g Zip Code Deft of Inapedion Pa". Ckyffawn o. System Information (cont.) Distribudon oox (if present must be opened) (locate on site plan): level Depth of liquid level above outlet invert Comments (note if box is level and distribution to outlets equal, any evid�oe of solids carryover. any evidence of leakage into or out of box, etc.): D-box was found level and in working order with equal dWibution to outlet lines. No evidence of solid carry -ow or backup in the was found at the time of Pump Chamber (locate on site plan), Pumps in working order ❑ Yes ❑ NW Alarms in working order: ❑ Yes ❑ NW Comments (note condition of pump chamber, condition of pumps and appurtenanoes, etc.): N/A • If pumps or alarms are not in working order, system is a conditional Pass. Sa Absorption System (SAS) (locate on site plan, excavation not required): if SAS not located, explain why: TWSORWM.F P-M Ferflr&MWJ1MeVwp9MP=d>9-- -Ap120(17 use,. -ens Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurkm Sswsge Disposal System form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Bevy Avenue, West Yarmouth M 16 P 16 OWW Claire Greenev irdwrwdon b Owe �"1e rsy,,;m for every 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2. 2014 Pape- ckyfrow Staff ZIP Cask vale of lm Cft D. System Information (corn.) Type: ❑ leaching pits number. -- ® leading chambers number. 8 flowdiffusers with 2' stone ❑ leading galleries number. 2 - 28' X V X 2' ❑ leaching trenches number, length: ❑ leaching fields number, dimensions: ❑ overflow cesspool number. ❑ innovative/alternative system Type/name of technology: Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of ponding, damp soil, condition of vegetation, etc.): Soil was sandy. flows were found with little water present with walls found clean with no staining. Checked stone and found dry and clean. No evidence of hydraulic failure or problems in the past were hound at the time of inspection Cesspools (cesspool must be pumped as part of inspection) (locale on site plan): Number and configuration N/A Depth — top of liquid to inlet invert Depth of solids layer Depth of scum layer Dimensions of cesspool Materials of construction Indication of groundwater inflow ft*-3M3 WA N/A N/A N/A N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No TM1a 5 Onldr k�aaoon Fonn: suoarraoa 8swapa ONDod BMMm • Paps 13 or 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 official Inspection Form Subsurface gwagg Disposal Sys%m Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 BerryAvenue, West Yarmouth M -16 P -16 Claire Greeney Owner owners Name bar 2, 2014 ea s 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA � oft of y0" Pam• EWF� D. System Information (cunt.) Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, lqvel of ponding, condition of vegetation, etc.): N/A Privy (locate on site plan): NIA Materials of construction: N/A Dimensions MIA Depth of solids Comments (note condition of soil, signs of hydraulic failure, level of pending, oonditlon of vegetation, etc.): N/A t6ka • 3n3 nw a 0Wd a @peel, Few SWOm n eee.o.OMpew SI MM • Pap 14 d 17 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurfaca Sewage Obposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 188 Barry Avenue, West Yarmouth M 16 P 16 Properly Address Claire Greeney Owner information is Owner's Name required for �y 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2.2014 Pap. grown state ZIP Code Oahe of InspeCion D. System Information (cunt.) Sketch Of Sewage Disposal System: Provide a view of the sewage disposal system, including ties to at IOW two permanent reference landmarks or benchmarks. Locate all wells within 100 feet Locate where public water supply enters the building. Check one of the boxes below: hand -sketch in the area below ❑ drawing attached separately iSkn• 3n3 To' 5 0"'OW kNpaal- Far &O-rfta SWAMP Dwpp 0 ft~ - papa 16 of 17 !4b, Owner kdoffnam is required for etrerY page. Commonwealth of MassachueeUS Title 5 Official Inspection Forte Subsurface gawage Disposal System form -Not for Voluntary P- Prop" Aatlress Claire GreeneY Owner's Neme 2 2014 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA 02673 Dees of kupudon CIWTown s ZtP Codf D. System information (con Site Exarn: ® Check Slope ® Surface water ❑ Check cellar ❑ Shallow wells 10.0'+ Estimated depth to high ground wafer: fad Please indicate all methods used to determine the high ground water elevation: ® Obtained from system design plans on record 6/24193 If checked, date of design plan reviewed: Daft ® Observed site (abutting property/observation hole within 150 feet of SAS) ❑ - Checked with local Board of Health - explain: ❑ Checked with local excavators, instaNsn - (attach documentation) ® Accessed USGS database - explain: �filw_29 _-zone A 9.0' 2.2' ad'ustment You must describe how you established the high ground water elevation: Test hole recorded on plan showed water found at 10.9. Hand sugared 3' below bottom of Ding with no water found at a depth of 9N. Groundwater adjustment at the time of inspection was 22. Bottom of leaching at 6.5' was found not to be baited in the high groundwater elevation at the time of ins on. Plan attached. Before fUM9 this Inspection Report, piano sea Report Con istarms ChmMist on next page. thins • 8JI8 Tme s amm Yttp1, Fame fi W$ftw srwspr. CYpoW 9yWM • Frail 16d 1T Commonwealth of Massachusetin 19 Title 5 Official Inspection Form Subsurfac* Sewage Dkposal System Form - Not for Voluntary Assessments 1.N Berry Avenue West Yarmouth M 16 P 16 Property Addraft Claire Greeney OMW Wonnation is Owner's Name requhW for every 188 Berm Avenue West Yarmouth MA 02673 September 2, 2014 Pa". frowniii-O Zip Code Dais of Im"obon E. Report Completeness Checklist ® lnspedion Summary: A, B, C. D, or E decked ® Inspection Summary D (System Failure Criteria Applicable to All Systems) completed ® System Information — Estimated depth to high groundwater ® Sketch of Sewage Disposal System either drawn on page 15 or attached in separate file t5ft • ans T'"S OftW k*P@O-F-9&6-f— BOWW OMPOW gip- pop 17 of 17 0 I 1 �Lh j p 1• Ol V 3� I m F I hI I� �I 33 n o �W h W :V �J �n x _ n�T Y ,• e ? li p h al o Z O � N �i •� � N bti4` c �� o$ 'K j �Q Q G i � � a f S i44 Y r X q C �� �4�.1'D 1�• �� 0 1f Q� 0 Z==•ry N g 4 '� Z A Y n - n A, Fxx • THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASBACHUSE'M BOARD OF HEALTH TOWN OP YARMOUTH A"dirdwn fm viapaoll marks emamftu f emu 401-% ApplicMian is hereby made for a Permit to Contra goo or Repair { ) an Individual Sewage Diaposal s.,hmn .t- •s , . 1. + 47n Type of Building Size Lot. Le Dwelling —No. of Bedrooms.. ...».._. .»._..........»........Expansion Attic ( ) Garbage Grinds' Other— Type of Building »...»...........»_... No. of persons ........ Showers ( ) — Cafeteria ( ) Otherfutures » .» »»_.....»».�._..». '? Design Flaw...._...».,lll�?._ .gallons per person....- dad Total der y flrjyv ._...... ���. Septic Tank—Liquid'capaeityf' atlons W= Wid*S_..:Q Diameter---_..»._.— Depth—__ Disposal Trench — No...._ .... Width.......».»........ Total Leagth....._........yy. Total leaching area..._ . .......sq. ft. Seepage Pit N ..» Depth below inlet.».�..+�....... Total leaching area.------ . ft. Other box ()a y+ Perctiation Ten Results Performed b�..( CM!K4z�' .2% ZWS Tat Pit No. l ..e_2..minutes per inch Depth of Ted Pit. .......... Depth to ground water yl- _.. Tat Pit No. 2............ »._minutes per inch Depth of Test PiL........_...».... Depth to ground water......»......._....... DmAption of Nature of Repairs oa• Albersitions —Answer when applicable....�ew:,.�». .�!�.Al�l.../»X�...�.�t. -....f -. The undersigned agrees to install the aforedescri'bed Indvidual Sewage Disposal System in accordance witb the provisions of TITLE 5 of the State Sanitary Code — The undersigned further agrees not to place the system in operation until a Certif raft of Compliance has been issued by the board of health. Application Approved Application Disspprm Pamk Na... .,.... L wd_...... .Dab THU COXMONWEALTH OF MA114ACMUSETTE - . Jj%.► j//f ---� k'-'BOARb OF HEALTH Q TOW at YARMOUTH �1ae tf C t of l�sr r THIS IS TO CERTI , That I Disposd System constructed ( )err Rgmbvd has been installed in accordance h the provisions of TITLF 5 of T Cade as application for Disposal Wort Construction Permit No._. _. ...... ..�'" TW ISSUAM OIL THIS C MPICAU S 1iOT lit CMMUD AS A THAT T!� SYSTaRM WILL ituNCtloN SAy iSMC�QAY. . •i•) 7i'/% .f i A PRO s. ION I. CO &TION CHARLES P. REIDY, BI DANIEL J. GRIFFIN, JR. PAUL R. KEANE PAUL M. McTAOUE EDWARD F. MAHONEY DOUGLAS A. ROBERTSON- KEV►N C. REMY STEPHEN M. O'SHEA JENNIFER E. KOGAN • ROBERT E. BURGESS SARAH ANN GREENHAIAH MOAN F. RENEHAN JENNIFER A. CREEDON +I DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE' KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANIE M. GAZDA I MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 TELECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 W W W.MMMK.COM Sent Via Facsimile February 25, 2016 E-Mail • b_ m=hy aaYarmouth.ma us And First Class Mail Mr. Bruce G. Murphy Health Director Town of Yarmouth 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664 Re: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth MA Dear Mr. Murphy: s>rn��. RAYMOND1.KENNEY,JR. EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-1989) HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1935-1999) CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1995) • ALSO ADMITTED IN CA I ALSO ADMITTED INCT ALSO ADMrrrED IN NH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RI Yarmouth Conservation Commission EFEB2016 RECEIVED We represent Mr. Durkin, an abutter to the above address. Recent proposed substantial improvements reference continued use of the current septic system, despite the land being on a flood plain, subject to coastal storm flowage, and subject to the new building code regulations resulting from the Town's adoption of the regulations pursuant to the 2014 FIRM/NFIP plan. (See Yarmouth Regs. 201.4 Flood plain zones)(See 403, Flood Area provisions). We write requesting copies of any plans submitted to your office, purporting to confirm that the proposed larger house and new in-law suite over the garage will all be adequately served by the existing septic system. We note that groundwater elevation at 114" and expected still water BFE of 11.4, in a 100 year storm, seem to preclude continued use of the existing system given the "substantial improvements" to the subject property. We will gladly reimburse you for any costs associated with providing us copies of any/all relevant septic documents. Very truly yours, DAR:Imd Douglas A. Robertson cc: Ali R. Bigdeliazari Town of Yarmouth — Conservation Commission MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY A PROFESSIONAL. COu A71ON CHARLES P. REIDY, M DANIEL L GRIFFIN, JR. PAUL R. KEANE PAUL M. McTAGUE EDWARD F. MAHONEY DOUGLAS A. ROBERTSON• KEVIN C. REMY STEPHEN M. O'SHEA JENNIFER E. KOGAN . ROBERTE.BURGESS • SARAH ANN GREENHALGH JOAN F. RENEHAN JENMM A. CREEDON +1 DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANIE M. GAZDA I ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 TELECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 W W W.MMMK.COM February 25, 2016 Sent Via Facsimile E-Mail: mgrylls@yarmouth.ma.us And First Class Mail Mr. Mark A. Grylls Building Commissioner Town of Yarmouth Building Department 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664 Re: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA Dear Mr. Grylls: MMR_0� RAYMOND 1. KENNEY. JIL EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPHRAEN MARTIN (1927-1988) HAROLD 1 MAONUSON (1939-1999) CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1985) • ALSO ADMITTED IN CA I ALSO ADMITTED IN CT • ALSO ADMITTED IN NH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RI Yarmouth Conservation Commission FEB 2 9 2016 RECEIVED We note permit 16004294, dated January 22, 2016, permit 16002349, dated October 19, 2015 and permit 160002395, dated October 26, 2015, all issued for work in a flood plain, a resource area, on land within 100 feet of wetlands, and in a FEMA special hazard area. No approval of the Conservation Commission was obtained. Can you advise? Very truly yours, Aouglas A. Robertso DAR:lmd cc: Ali R. Bigdeliazari Town of Yarmouth — Conservation Commission MARTIN, MAGNUSON, McCARTHY & KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 TELECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 SEP¢4 CHARLES P. REEDY, M W W W.MMMK.COM RAYMONDJ. JE JE'. JR. DANIEL J. GRIFFIN, JR. PAUL R. KEANE EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949-2007) PAUL M. McTAOUE EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-1989) EDWARD F. MAHONEY HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1939-1999) DOUGLAS A. ROBERTSON• CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1985) KEVIN C. REEDY STEPHEN M. O'SHEA • • ALSO ADMITTED IN CA JENNIFER E. KOGAN • 1 ALSO ADMITTED IN CT ROBERT E. BURGESS • ' ALSO ADMITTED IN NH SARAH ANN GREENHALGH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RI JOAN F. RENE iAN JENNIFER A- CREEDON +1 DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANIE M.GAZDAI February 25, 2016 James Mahala, Section Chief Department of Environmental Protection Division of Wetlands and Waterways FFEB servation 20 Riverside Drive sion Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 2016 Re: 188 BerryAvenue, West Yarmouth, MA SE83-2048 Appeal R E C E I V E D The February 3, 2016 Notice Dear Mr. Mahala: The February 3, 2016 notice regarding the SOC process states all work at the property, as proposed in the NOI, should stop pending resolution of the appeal. At the February 24, 2016 on -site visit, reconstruction work described on the NOI was underway. Please advise if the Department will be enforcing the February 3, 2016 letter and the governing provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, §40. Very truly yours, Aougla obertso DAR:lmd cc: Ali R. Bigdeliazari Town of Yarmouth — Conservation Commission MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MER_RIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSE. 1 S 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION T E' ECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 CI-:ARLES P. RE:DY, :Il W W W.MMMK.COM DANIEL J. GR!FFPJ, JR. PAUL R KEANE PAULM McTAGUE EDWARD P MAHONEY DOUGLAS A.ROBERTSON- KEVIN C REIDY STEPHEN M O'SHEA " JENNIFER E. KOGAN , ROBERT E. BURGESS SARAH ANN GREENHALGH JOAN F. RENIE14AN JENNIFER A, CREEDON *1 DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE" VAT14LEEN O'DONiNELL WYATT STEPHANIE M GAZDAi February 25, 2016 Sent Via Facsimile E-MaiI: mgrylls@yarmouth.ma.us And First Class Mail Mr. Mark A. Grylls Building Commissioner Town of Yarmouth Building Department 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664 Re: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA Dear Mr. Grylls: SEN10R COUNSEL RAYMOND J KENNEY, JR. EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPHRAIM MARTEN (1927-1999) HAROLD E MAGNUSON (1938-1999) CLEMENT MCCARTHY (! 951-I WS) • ALSO ADM ;'lED IN CA ALSO ADMITTED IN CT ALSO ADM.=D IN NH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RI We note permit 16004294, dated January 22, 2016, permit 16002349, dated October 19, 2015 and permit 160002395, dated October 26, 2015, all issued for work in a flood plain, a resource area, on land within 100 feet of wetlands, and in a FEMA special hazard area. No approval of the Conservation Commission was obtained. Can you advise? Very truly yours, �ibouglas A. Robertso DAR:lmd cc: Ali R. Bigdeliazari Town of Yarmouth — Conservation Commission MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY & KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUS-L-. ' 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: !617; 227-3240 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELECOPIER: (617, 227-3346 CHARLES P REIDY, If] WWW.MMMK COM DAMEL J GRIFFIN. JR PAUL R, KEANE, PAUL M McTAGUE EDWARD F. MAHONEY DOUGLAS A, ROBE RTSON• KEVIN C, REIDY STEPHEN M O'SHEA JENNI ER E KOGAN ROBERTE. BURGESS' SARAH ANN GREENHALGI I JOAN F REJEfIAN JENNIFER A. CREEDON 41 DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE KATIPLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHAN:EM GAZDA! February 25, 2016 Sent Via Facsimile E-Mail: bmwphyra&Yarmouth.ma.us And First Class Mail Mr. Bruce G. Murphy Health Director Town of Yarmouth 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02664 Re: 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth MA Dear Mr. Murphy: SENIOR COUNSEL RAYMOND J. KENNEY, IR EDWARD P HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPtiRAIM MARTIN (1927-1988) HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1939-1999) CLEMF.,Y( MCCART?^' ;1951.1985) ALSO ADMITTED IN CA ! ALSO ADMITTED :N CT ALSO ADVI=, IN NH r A'_SO ADMFI-FED !N RJ We represent Mr. Durkin, an abutter to the above address. Recent proposed substantial improvements reference continued use of the current septic system, despite the land bP1,ng on a flood plain, subject to coastal storm flowage, and subject to the new building code regulations resulting from the Town's adoption of the regulations pursuant to the 2014 FIRM/NFIp plan. (See Yarmouth Regs. 201,4 Flood plain zones)(See 403, Flood Area provisions), We write requesting copies of any plans submitted to your office, purporting to confirm that the proposed larger house and new in-law suite over the garage will all be adequately served by the existing septic system. We note that groundwater elevation at 114" and expected still water BFE of 11.4, in a 100 year storm, seem to preclude continued use of the existing system given the "substantial improvements" to the subject property, We will gladly reimburse you for any costs associated with providing ly—, copies of any, all relevant septic documents. Very truly yours, �fff Y� "Douglas A. Robertson DAR:lmd cc: Ali R. Bigdeliazari Town of Yarmouth — Conservation Commission MARTIN, MAGNUSON, McCARTHY 8, KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 SENIOR COUNSEL CHARLES P. REIDY, III ilrVJ{!•,•,iJ......... COM RAYMOND J KENNEY, JR DANIEL 1. GRIFFIN, JR. EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949--2007) PAUL R. KEANE EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-1998) PAUL M. McTAGUE HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1938-1999) EDWARD F. MAHONEY CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1985) DOUGLAS A. ROBERTSON' KEVIN C. REIDY ALSO ADMITTED IN CA STEPHEN M O'SHEA * ALSO ADMITTED IN CT JENNIFER E. KOGAN • * ALSO ADMITTED IN NH ROBERT E. BURGESS * r ALSO ADMITTED IN RI SARAH ANN GREENHALGH JOAN F. RENEHAN JENNIFER A. CREEDON DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E. PRICE KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANIE M. GAZDAI February 25, 2016 James Mahala, Section Chief Department of Environmental Protection Division of Wetlands and Waterways 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, Massachusetts 02347 Re: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA SE83-2048 Appeal The February 3. 2016 Notice Dear Mr. Mahala: The February 3, 2016 notice regarding the SOC process states all work at the property, as proposed in the NOI, should stop pending resolution of the appeal. At the February 24, 2016 on -site visit, reconstruction work described on the NOI was underway. Please advise if the Department will be enforcing the February 3, 2016 letter and the governing provisions of M.G.L. c. 131, §40. Very truly yours, Douglas A. Robertson DAR:lmd cc: Ali R. Bigdeliazari Town of Yarmouth — Conservation Commission Call of the Wild Consulting and Environmental Services February 19, 2016 James Mahala, Section Chief Department of Environmental Protection Division of Wetlands and Waterways 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA. 02347 Re: SE83-2048 Appeal, 188 Berry Ave., Yarmouth, MA. Dear Mr. Mahala, On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Durkin I would like to offer the following comments on the proposed project at 188 Berry Ave., Yarmouth, MA. Wildlife Habitat is defined in the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L.c. 130 sec. 40, para. 14 as follows: "wildlife habitat" shall mean those areas subject to this section which, due to their plant community composition and structure, hydrologic regime or other characteristics, provide important food, shelter, migratory or overwintering areas, or breeding areas for wildlife. Under the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations 310 CMR 10.24 General Provisions (1) states: "If the issuing authority determines that a resource area is significant to an interest identified in M. G.L. c. 131, sec. 40 for which no presumption is stated in the Preamble to the applicable section, the issuing authority shall impose such conditions as are necessary to contribute to the protection of such interests. " During the Conservation Commission public hearing, the Durkin's representative, attorney Robertson tried to submit documentation that the project site is providing significant wildlife habitat. The Chairman refused to accept this information. Mrs. Durkin has observed waterfowl such as mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) roosting during high tides on the seaward portion of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and on the Coastal Bank for the past 5 years. Because of the juxtaposition of this property to the adjacent intertidal feeding area and some vegetative cover, it is providing important overwintering roosting habitat. During high tides certain species of waterfowl need nearby dry areas to rest, digest food, and preen their feathers with oil to keep them water repellant. The following photographs are examples of what Mr. Robertson tried to submit into the record at the public hearing. P.O. Box 572 592 East Sangerville Road West Falmouth, MA 02574 Sangerville, ME 04479 508-548-0521 Tel/Fax 207-564-2966 Tel/Fax callwild2@hotmail.com " callwild2@hotmail.com Roosting Habitat at 188 Berry Ave. Roosting Habitat at 188 Berry Ave. The Yarmouth Conservation Commission Order of Conditions failed to protect the wildlife habitat interest under the provision found in 310 CMR 10.24 (1). In addition, the plan of record does not show the AE Zone Limit of Moderate Wave Action on the site and depicted on the most recent FIRM Map, dated July 16, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, C. Diane Boretos, PWS Cc: Attorney Robertson Roosting Habitat at 188 Berry Ave. Roosting Habitat at 188 Berry Ave. The Yarmouth Conservation Commission Order of Conditions failed to protect the wildlife habitat interest under the provision found in 310 CMR 10.24 (1). In addition, the plan of record does not show the AE Zone Limit of Moderate Wave Action on the site and depicted on the most recent FIRM Map, dated July 16, 2014. Res ecttfully Submitt , v6w Aa C. Diane Boretos, PWS Cc: Attorney Robertson e WeVana s I sws �$ i °m 0001088 `mc Town of Yarmouth Conservation Commission Building Permit Sign -off Application TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT: Building Site Location: Map # 16 Lot(s) # !�_ 2 Property Owner: Applicant: q Applicant Address: O bO "('. Telephone: 7 3-/ 2 .M (90 (3- ? , Date Filed 3 "2-g l . Proposed Project Description: Plans: TO BE FILLED OUT BY CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATOR: Do You Have A Valid Permit From The Conservation Commission For The Proposed Project? //0 Comments from Conservati ommission: Approved Conditionally Approved Rejected All work related debris shall be taken offsite or disposed in a legal upland location At the end of each day, the area shall be clean and no debris shall be in the Resource Area Refer to: SE83- or DOA permit Conservation Commission Sign -off Signature: Date: Durkin v Conservation Commission February 9th, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the `coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application narrative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. As per 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). 5. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performance standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, coincides with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. As per the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, "All... applications shall be accompanied by plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." Plans by a professional land surveyor were deemed applicable. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). The Commission accepted all supporting information offered to them during the hearing. The FEMA flood map dated 7/6/2014 was included in the NO1 by the applicant. (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. The 'limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NOI plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8. As per the applicant's narrative within the Notice of Intent (NOI), the top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank is somewhat subjective. The Commission chose to accept the calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy 92-1, the final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. 9. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. Regardless, minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of a resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter ......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the property for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Given the existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffer which will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. The Commission did not deny any request by the abutter to submit photographs as asserted by Diane Boretos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far as we are aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as per the narrative in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The 5600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Durkin v Conservation Commission February 9th, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the 'coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application narrative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. As per 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). 5. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performance standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, coincides with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. As per the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, "All... applications shall be accompanied by plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." Plans by a professional land surveyor were deemed applicable. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). The Commission accepted all supporting information offered to them during the hearing. The FEMA flood map dated 7/6/2014 was included in the NO1 by the applicant. (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. The 'limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NO1 plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8. As per the applicant's narrative within the Notice of Intent (NO1), the top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank is somewhat subjective. The Commission chose to accept the calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy 92-1, the final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. 9. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. Regardless, minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of a resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the property for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Given the existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffer which will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. The Commission did not deny any request by the abutter to submit photographs as asserted by Diane Boretos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far as we are aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as per the narrative in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The 5600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Durkin v Conservation Commission February 9th, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the 'coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application narrative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. As per 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). 5. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performance standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, coincides with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. As per the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, "All ... applications shall be accompanied by plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." Plans by a professional land surveyor were deemed applicable. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). The Commission accepted all supporting information offered to them during the hearing. The FEMA flood map dated 7/6/2014 was included in the NOI by the applicant. (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. The 'limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NO1 plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8. As per the applicant's narrative within the Notice of Intent (NO1), the top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank is somewhat subjective. The Commission chose to accept the calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy 92-1, the final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. 9. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. Regardless, minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of a resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter ......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the property for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Given the existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffer which will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. The Commission did not deny any request by the abutter to submit photographs as asserted by Diane Boretos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far as we are aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as per the narrative in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The 5600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Durkin v Conservation Commission February 91h, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the 'coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application narrative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. As per 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). S. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performance standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, coincides with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. As per the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, "All ... applications shall be accompanied by plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." Plans by a professional land surveyor were deemed applicable. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). The Commission accepted all supporting information offered to them during the hearing. The FEMA flood map dated 7/6/2014 was included in the NOI by the applicant. (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. The 'limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NOI plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8. As per the applicant's narrative within the Notice of Intent (NO1), the top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank is somewhat subjective. The Commission chose to accept the calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy 92-1, the final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. 9. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. Regardless, minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of a resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter ......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the property for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Given the existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffer which will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. The Commission did not deny any request by the abutter to submit photographs as asserted by Diane Boretos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far as we are aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as per the narrative in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The S600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Durkin v Conservation Commission February 9th, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the 'coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application narrative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. r 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. As per 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). 5. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performan standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, coincides with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. As per the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, "All... applications shall be accompanied by plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." Plans by a professional land surveyor were deemed applicable. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). The Commission accepted all supporting information offered to them during the hearing. The FEMA flood map dated 7/6/2014 was included in the NOI by the applicant. (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. The 'limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NOI plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8. As per the applicant's narrative within the Notice of Intent (NO1), the top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank is somewhat subjective. The Commission chose to acceptthe calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy 92-1, the final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. 9. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. Regardless, minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of a resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter ......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the propert+ for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Given the existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffer which will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. The Commission did not deny any request by the abutter to submit photographs as asserted by Diane Boretos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far as we are aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as perhe narrative in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The 5600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond,the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Durkin v Conservation Commission February 91h, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the 'coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application nar'ative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. As per 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). 5. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performance standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, coincides with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. As per the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, "All... applications shall be accompanied by plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." Plans by a professional land surveyor were deemed applicable. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). The Commission accepted all supporting information offered to them during the hearing. The FEMA flood map dated 7/6/2014 was included in the NOI by the applicant. (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. T�a :limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NO1 plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8.-AspfrtWapplicant's narrative- within the -Notice of Intent (NOI), the top of the coastal bank, was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 sand is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank is somewhat subjective. The Commission chose to accept the calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy 92-1, the final ,approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. R M-rdless;°minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of A resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as: mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters: Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter ......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the propert� for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Giveo existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffkWich will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts Eft wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. 'The Commission did not deny any request by thei6butter to submit photographs as asserted by Dial .etos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far-' s Rare. aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as pert narrative in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The 5600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i. a straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. it is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. t 01% Durkin v Conservation Commission February 9th, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the 'coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application narrative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. Asper 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). 5. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performance standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, c6incides,with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. As per the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, "All... applications shall be accompanied by plans prepared and stamped by a prafessional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." Plans by a professional land surveyor were deemed applicable. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). The Commission accepted all supporting information offered to them during the hearing. The FEMA flood map dated 7/6/2014 was included in the NOI by the applicant. (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. The 'limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NOI plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8. As per the applicant's narrative within the Notice of Intent (NOI), the top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank is somewhat subjective. The Commission chose to accept the calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy,92-1, the final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. 9. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. Regardless, minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of a resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter ......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the propert� for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Given the existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffer which will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. The Commission did not deny any request by the abutter to submit photographs as asserted by Diane Boretos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far as we are aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as pertlhe narrative in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The 5600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (Le straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Cerrfflicate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. . fde Edrt °�� i 0 TOWN OF YARMOUTH CONSERVATION COMMISSION Request to Inspect Records Date & Time: C) Is) ) 6 File Name: SE83- a_ 0 LA Project Address: 1� 8 B -e V-V, Name of Person Inspecting File Reason of Inspecting File: Number of Pages Copied: Total Amount Paid: C. vV U(-9- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NPn� Yarmouth Conservation Commission • 1146 Route 28 • South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492 Tel. (508)-398-2231 Ext. 1288 • Fax (508)-398-0836 • TTD# (508) 398-2231 Li Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Protection Southeast Regional Office • 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville MA 02347.508-946-2700 Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114-4716 Dear Attorney Robertson: Matthew A. Beaton Secretary Martin Suuberg Commissioner February 3, 2016 RE: YARMOUTH--Wetlands--File No. SE 83-2048 Appeal Acceptance/On-Site for Superseding Order of Conditions 188 Berry Avenue Please be advised that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has received your appeal to the Order of Conditions issued on the above -referenced file and that, in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40, the Department will make a determination on whether the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to public or private water supply, to the ground water supply, to flood control, to storm damage prevention, to prevention of pollution, to protection of land containing shellfish, to the protection of fisheries, and to the protection of wildlife habitat. If the appellant is other than the applicant, please be advised that a copy of your appeal must immediately be sent certified mail or hand delivered to the Conservation Commission and the applicant in accordance with 310 CMR 10.05(7)(d). The Department has scheduled an on -site meeting on the above -referenced file for all concerned parties so that the Department can properly evaluate the situation and issue an appropriate Superseding Order imposing such conditions as will contribute to the protection of the interests described herein. SAID MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 11:00am. In order to expedite the Department's review of the project, it is recommended that the applicant h the wetland resource areas and significant project components identified in the field at the time of scheduled on -site meeting. The applicant is advised that no work, as proposed in the Notices of Intent for the abov file, shall be undertaken until the Final Order is issued by the MassDE d all admstrative al have elapsed. ® 3 n1330 3 N 910Z s o 83� uoissivautoC uo!}eAJasuoC y;noLuJeA This information is available in alternate format Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Diversity Director, at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Servicem-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper t -2- If you have any questions or need additional information, PLEASE CONTACT Greg DeCesare at (508) 946-2762. cc: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari 18 Juniper Road Medway, MA 02053 Very truly yours, r Brenda Harper, Wetlands Program Bureau of Water Resources Grant, Kelly From: Grant, Kelly Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 10:24 AM To: 'Douglas A. Robertson' Subject: RE: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Attachments: Conservation Commission Minutes Jan 7th, 2016.PDF Hi Doug Here are the Meeting Minutes as requested. Regards Kelly Grant Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth 508-398-2231 Ext 1288 kgrant@Varmouth.ma.us From: Douglas A. Robertson [mailto•DRobertsonCmmmk com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:56 PM To: Grant, Kelly Subject: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Hi Ms. Grant: I represent abutters Michael and Janet Durkin. I request the Order of Conditions, the minutes of the 1/7/16 meeting concerning this matter, and a copy of the audiotape made of the matter. I agree to pay all costs associated with this request. Please confirm receipt of this request, and let me know if you need prepayment and/or another form of the request. Doug Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114-4716 Phone 617-227-3240 ext. 315 Cell 617-513-8511 Fax 617-227-3346 E-mail drobertson o)mmmk.com Webpage Profile For Attorney Client Communications --This Email is Privileged and Confidential ---Do Not Print, Copy or Forward Without Express Permission of Doug Robertson Health Regulations." The proposed addition and living space above the proposed garage will increase the amount of "livable living space" and trigger an increase in leaching capacity within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. This work is not shown on the plan. For the reasons described above the proposed project should be denied. Sincerely, C. Diane Boretos, PWS Senior Wetland Biologist Call of the Wild Consulting and Environmental Services 592 East Sangerville Rd. Sangerville, ME 04479 MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY Ss KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 CHARLES P REIDY, III WWW.MMMK.COM DANIEL J GRIFFIN, 1R PAUL R KEANE PAUL M McTAGUE EDWARD F MAHONEY DOUGLAS A, ROBERTSON• KEVIN C REIDY STEPHEN M O'SHEA' JENNIFER E KOGAN ROBERTE BURGESS' SARAH ANN GREENHALGH IOAN F RENEHAN JENNIFER A. CREEDON +i DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E PRICE' KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPHANE M GAZDA! January 26, 2016 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Town Of Yarmouth Conservation Commission Ed Hoopes, Chairman 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA. 02664-4492 Town Clerk Philip B. Gaudet 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA. 02664-4492 Ali R. Bigdeliazari Elaine R. Bigdeliazari 18 Juniper Road Medway, MA. 02053 SENIOR COUNSEL RAYMOND J. KENNEY, JR. EDWARD F. HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-1988) HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1938-1999) CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1995) ALSO ADMITTED IN CA ALSO ADMITTED IN CT ALSO ADMITTED IN NH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RJ a3AI E26 V �,,suoO 44noLuJe, Re: Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of The Durkin Trust, et al v. Yarmouth Conservation Commission, By And Through Its Commissioners, et al Dear Sir/Madam: In accordance with the Town Of Yarmouth By Law Chapter 143-10, Wetland, Appeals, enclosed please find: 1) Complaint. Very truly yours, Douglas A. Robertson Attorney For Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of The Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts DAR/mw Enclosure COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BARNSTABLE, SS MICHAEL AND JANET DURKIN TRUSTEES OF THE DURKIN TRUST, OWNERS OF 15 LEWIS BAY BOULEVARD, YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS Plaintiffs VS. YARMOUTH CONSERVATION COMMISSION, BY AND THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONERS, EDWARD HOOPES, TOM DURKIN, JOAN CARR, PHIL JOHNSTON, RICK BISHOP, AUDREY RUSSANO, AND MAUREEN GALLAGHER Defendants BARNSTABLE DIVISION CA NO. COMPLAINT SUBJECT MATTER This COMPLAINT is an Appeal pursuant to Chapter 143-10 of The Town of Yarmouth Wetland By Law, of a vote taken by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission on 1/7/16, on the Notice of Intent filed for 188 Berry Avenue, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, DEP File# SE83-2048, and an Order of Conditions ("Order") issued on 1/15/16. This Appeal is of the Yarmouth Conservation Commission's actions and determinations made pursuant to Yarmouth Town By Law, Chapter 143, Wetlands, and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, including without limitation, Part 1, sections 1.01-1.09, Part 2, sections 2.01-2.12. JURISDICTION Town of Yarmouth, By -Law Chapter 143-10, vests this court with specific jurisdiction to hear the Appeal of any Order of The Conservation Commission, and " hear all evidence pertinent to the authority and findings of the Commission and determine the facts and, upon the facts so determined, annul such decision if found to exceed the authority of The Commission or make such other decree as justice and equity may require." THE PARTIES l . The plaintiffs, Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of the Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, ("The Durkin") are an aggrieved abutter to the proposed substantial changes, enlargement, new construction, and new septic facilities, at 188 Berry Avenue, Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the procedural and substantive violations of. (1) Yarmouth By Law Chapter 143, and (2) The Town Of Yarmouth, Wetlands Protection Regulations, committed by The Town of Yarmouth Conservation ("Yarmouth Conservation Commission") prior to and during the 1/7/16 public hearing concerning the Notice of Intent filed by Ali R. and Elaine R. Bigdelizari, concerning 188 Berry Avenue, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, ("subject property") committed by The Yarmouth Conservation Commission when it voted on 1/7/16 to issue an Order with respect to the subject property, and committed by The Yarmouth Conservation Commission when it issued the Order dated 1/15/16 concerning the subject property. 2. The defendant, Yarmouth Conservation Commission, whose voting members on 1/7/16, PA and who signed the Order on 1/15/16, are Edward Hoopes, Tom Durkin, Phil Johnston, Rick Bishop, Audrey Russano, and Maureen Gallagher, collectively constitute the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, which is charged by Town of Yarmouth By Law Chapter 143 and The Town of Yarmouth, Wetland Protection Regulations, with the obligation and responsibility "to protect the foreshores, wetlands and groundwater supply of The Town of Yarmouth by controlling activities deemed to have significant effect on wetland water quality values, including but not limited to the following: public or private water supply, ground water, flood control, erosion control, storm damage, water pollution, fisheries, shellfish, wildlife and recreation" (By Law Chapter 143-1) and which is specifically and expressly subject to suit by By Law Chapter 143-10. THE CLAIM The plaintiffs contend that the defendant acted in violation of Yarmouth By Law Chapter 143, and The Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, in contravention to, and in excess of, the authority vested in the defendant by Chapter 143 and the Wetland Protection Regulations, when the defendant voted on 1/7/16 to issue an Order allowing the proposed substantial changes and enlargements, new construction, and new septic facilities at the subject property, and on 1/15/16 when the defendant issued the Order approving its 1/7/16 vote. The plaintiffs contend the defendant violated the aforesaid By Laws and By Law regulations in the manner described below: 1. By Law 143-2(A) requires the applicant file "all plans as may be necessary to describe such proposed activity and its effect on the environment". 2. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 1.09(2)(a) requires all notice of intent ("NOI") be accompanied by "plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." 3. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 1.09(2)(d) require plans to show and label all "Resource Areas." (1.04 defining "Resource Areas".) 4. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 1.02(1)(h), 1.04 defining "Resource Area" and 2.10, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, ("LSCSF") defining LSCSF as areas landward of the ocean's estuaries, during a 100 year storm, as designated by "the latest flood insurance rate maps provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency". 5. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations define the ocean estuary in front of the subject property, Lewis Bay, as a "Major Estuary". (Regs, at 1.04) 6. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 2.10(3) Performance Standards, limit work on septic systems in LSCSF, to "repairs" to "existing septic systems", provided they meet Titles and local board of health thresholds. 7. Yarmouth Conservation Commission violated the By Law and By Law regulations by voting to issue an Order when the applicant's plans: (a) were not prepared by, or stamped by, a qualified professional engineer, with demonstrable experience in septic deign, buildings subject to wave action and storm flowage during 100 year storms, and delineation of FEMA Flood zone designations from FEMA's most recent 7/16/14 flood maps onto proposed building plans; (b) had a land surveyor locate AE(EL 11) and VE(EL13) flood elevation areas on the NOI site plan, without any mention of, or reference to, Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, at 2.10(2), which expressly requires locating LSCSF and 4 associated flood elevations by using the most recent FEMA map, the 7/16/14 map, which was presented to each conservation member on 1/7/16, by the plaintiffs advocate, and summarily rejected by each member of the conservation commission; (c) the NOI site plan fails to show the LSCSF on the subject property and the abutting properties, as required by regulation 1.09(2)(d), and fails to show the "limit of moderate wave action" line at "Zone AE 12, as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14, which depicts the moderate wave action line during a 100 year storm as being at the seaward edge of the existing house structure, along the "top of the coastal bank" as depicted on the NOI site plan; (d) despite these glaring omissions from the NOI plans, and despite the applicant having the "burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the activities proposed in the application will not harm the interests protected by this By Law" (Regs. 1.03(2)) the conservation commission disregarded the FEMA 7/16/14 maps and flooding information, including where waves would be breaking on the applicant's front lawn, and voted on plans devoid of the latest FEMA information, an express violation of Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulation 2.10(2) and 1.04 "Definitions" concerning land within 300 feet on a major estuary, which require the conservation commission to use and follow the latest FEMA mapping; (e) the plans and NOI call for expanded living space in the existing house and over the new four car garage, requiring expanded septic capacity, to be constructed in a "Resource Area", LSCSF, without submission of any stamped engineering plan, as required by By Law 143-2 and Regulation 1.09(2)(a), and in violation of Regulation 2.10(3) which expressly limits septic work on LSCSF to "existing septic systems and cesspool repairs". The Conservation Commission violated the regulation when it voted to issue an Order without any engineering plans showing only repairs to an existing system which would not adversely affect the Resource Area, LSCSF, during a 100 year storm. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 1.09, 1.05(4)(a), 2.05(Coastal Banks), and Wetlands Program Policy 92-1, require a coastal bank be identified by following policy 92-1, including locating the toe of the bank, identifying which of the seven figures in 92-1 best describes the coastal bank, and providing cross sections of the coastal bank. The applicant's NOI, at the 1/7/16 hearing, failed to comply with these requirements. The plaintiff told the Conservation Commission the NOI was defective due to inadequate information about the coastal bank and therefore there was inadequate notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff advised the Conservation Commission that the coastal bank was not properly located, so the required setbacks from the coastal bank (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 1.09(4)(c)(1)(b) and 2.05) prohibiting new structures within 50 feet of a coastal bank) were not properly delineated in the NOI plans. Instead of continuing the hearing, and requiring the applicant to submit fully compliant plans and calculations, the Conservation Commission voted on the incomplete, inadequate and inaccurate NOI and plans, failed to follow the procedural and substantive provisions of By Law Chapter 143 and the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, and improperly voted to approve the project. 9. The NOI site plan shows a new, Olympic sized pool, with more than half of the new pool closer than 50 feet to the top of the coastal bank shown on the plan. The NOI plan shows 1,692 square feet of the new construction and expansion in the 50 foot no build zone. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, at section 1.09(4)(c)(1)(b) prohibits new structures within 50 feet of a coastal bank. Yarmouth Regulation 1.04 defines "structure" to include "pool". The Conservation Commission voted to allow the project, despite the pool and structures violating its own regulations. 10. Yarmouth By Law 143-2(A) prohibits altering land subject to coastal storm flowage, unless "maintaining, repairing or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging, an existing... structure". The proposed project in the NOI on the subject property adds a big pool and a huge garage, with living space, and additional septic and leaching facilities, all in violation of By Law 143. The NOI plan states that the project will add 2,904 square feet of new and additional structures. The Conservation Commission rejected the plaintiff's objections on this point at the 1/7/16 hearing, despite agreeing that the Conservation Commission does not allow new work in a Resource Area. The Conservation Commission's vote to allow substantial enlargement of the existing house, and building a new pool and garage, all in the LSCSF Resource Area, was a clear violation of By Law 143. 11. At the outset of the 1/7/16 hearing, the plaintiffs informed the Conservation Commission of the existence of year round water fowl living along the water's edge of the LSCSF and coastal bank, seaward of the existing house at 188 Berry 7 Avenue. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations at section 2.05 and 2.10 state that projects within these resource areas "are likely to have adverse impacts on ..... wildlife and wildlife habitat". (See 2.10(1)(g)(h)). The applicant had the burden to show no such adverse impact. (Regs 1.03) The plaintiffs offered to have Ms. Janet Durkin testify about, and show photographs of, the wild water fowl. The Conservation Commission elected to proceed to a vote, without hearing from Mrs. Durkin, without asking the applicant for information about the wild water fowl, and without addressing the wild water fowl habitat. For the reasons set forth in the supporting report of Diane Boretos, Senior Wetland Biologist (Exhibit "A") the Conservation Commission vote and the Order which issued, violated By Law Chapter 143 and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Regulations 2.10(1). 12. At the 1/7/16 hearing, the plaintiffs gave The Conservation Commission the 7/16/14 FEMA map showing that the entire subject property, and the plaintiffs' property, are in the AE(EL 11) zone, and it all is LSCSF. The applicant's NOI incorrectly states only "5600 square feet" of the subject property as LSCSF. The Conservation Commission issued its Order based on the applicant's incorrect information and based on a failure to understand the FEMA map designations of the entire subject property as LSCSF. 13. As stated at the 1/7/16 hearing, the plaintiffs are aggrieved abutters, with property directly landward of the subject property, also LSCSF, and if the proposed 2,904 square feet of new and expanded structures is allowed, the loss of absorbent LSCSF is presumed to have adverse impact on storm damage protection, 8 prevention of pollution, prevention of septic systems discharging into the storm waters, and the return of sediment to the estuary during storms. (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10.) The practical effect of such a project will be to intensify storm water flow, and associated adverse impacts, onto the plaintiffs' property. The project will also disrupt and destroy the existing wild water fowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. Because the NOI and NOI site plan were inadequate, inaccurate and incomplete, the plaintiffs were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to fully and fairly respond to and oppose the NOI at the 1/7/16 hearing. REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order annulling the 1/15/16 Order of Conditions; enter an Order requiring that any future NOI filing regarding the subject property be accompanied by a full size 7/16/14 FEMA Map, Panel 588, showing all storm flooding zones and information relevant to the subject property; enter an Order requiring that any future NOI filings regarding the subject property be accompanied by a signed and stamped engineering plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer, qualified in hydrology and storm water flowage, including velocity zones and limits the moderate wave action areas impacting LSCSF during 100 year storms, and delineating all applicable flooding zones per the 2014 FEMA Map Panel 588; and enter an Order that any future NOI for the subject property include an engineering analysis of storm water flowage onto the abutter's property, under existing conditions, and under the conditions presented by any new structures and/or substantial enlargement of existing structures on the subject property. Dated: JanuaryZ-�-2016 10 Respectfully submitted, ougl s A. Robertson BBO #552315 Attorney For Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of The Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, An Aggrieved Abutter Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 227-3240 dobertson@mmmk.com January 18, 2016 Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy and Kenney 101 Merrimac St. Boston, MA 02114 RE: Review of the Order of Conditions, SE 83-2048 by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission for 188 Berry Ave., Yarmouth, MA. On behalf of your client, Janet and Michael Durkin, Call of the Wild Consulting has reviewed the Notice of Intent and Order of Conditions for the proposed project at 188 Berry Ave. and would like to offer the following comments. Under the Town of Yarmouth's Wetlands Protection By-law, Chapter 143, and Wetlands Protection Regulations Under the Town of Yarmouth's Wetlands Protection By-law, Chapter 143, Section 2, (A) states "No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter any bank, freshwater wetland, beach, dune, flat, marsh, bog, or swamp, or estuary, creek, river, stream, pond, lake, or the ocean, or land under or bordering on said waters or wetlands, or any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, or construct any causeway, bridge, marina, wharf, dock or other similar structure in, on, over or within 100 feet of any of the aforesaid, other than in the course of maintaining, repairing, or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging, an existing and lawfully, meaning fulfilling the requirements of all applicable permits." The proposed project at 188 Berry Ave. submits a substantial expansion of the foot print of the existing structure which lies within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage as defined under The Town of Yarmouth's Wetlands Regulations 2.10, (2). In the Order of Conditions under Special Conditions — Page 10 a, # 8 states "No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the limit of work line." The entire project is within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, a defined Resource Area, and abuts the top of the Coastal Bank. Under the Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations 2.10, (1) the Preamble states "Land subject to coastal storm flowage are areas subject to coastal flooding during moderate and severe weather conditions. Projects that occur within these areas are likely to have adverse impacts on the following interests... (g) Wildlife and (h) Wildlife Habitat." An abutter to the project site, Janet Durkin, has observed mallards, (Anas platyrhynchos) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) utilizing the Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Flooding for feeding and overwintering roosting habitat for approximately 5 years. Roosting habitat is an essential area used for resting and preening during high tides. The project site is likely to be adjacent to a near shore feeding area for these species. Waterfowl on Coastal Bank at 188 Berry Ave Evidence in the form of photographs, such as the one above, were asked to be submitted as part of the record and for the Commission's consideration at the public hearing. The request was denied by the Chairman. The Conservation Commission failed to consider Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat interests protected under the Yarmouth Wetlands Bylaw and the Wetlands Protection Regulations in its deliberation and subsequent Order of Conditions. It should be noted that the submitted plan for the proposed project was not prepared by a Massachusetts Professional Registered Engineer. The Velocity Zone, VE (EL 13) is not accurately delineated and the AE (EL 12) zone is not shown at all on the plan. In addition, under General Notes on the plan, one of the notes states: "The septic system shown on this plan is an approximate location, contractor to verify location of existing system components and septic line and relocate as needed to comply with Board of A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CHARLES P REIDY. III DANIEL J GRIFFIN. JR PAUL R KEANE PAUL M McTAGUE EDWARD F MAHONEY DOUGLAS A ROBERTSON' KEVIN C REIDY STEPHEN M. O'SHEA' JENNIFER E. KOGAN ROBERTE BURGESS' SARAH ANN GREENHALGH JOAN F. RENEHAN JENNIFER A. CREEDON +! DARLENE DAWSON KATHRYN E PRICE ` KATHLEEN O'DONNELL WYATT STEPI-IANE M GAZDA ! MARTIN, MAGNUSON, MCCARTHY 8s KENNEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 MERRIMAC STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-4716 TELEPHONE: (617) 227-3240 TELECOPIER: (617) 227-3346 WWW.MMMK.COM January 26, 2016 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection Southeast Region -Main Office 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA. 02347 Town Of Yarmouth Conservation Commission Ed Hoopes, Chairman 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth. MA. 02664-4492 Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 18 Juniper Road Medway, MA. 02053 Re: DEP File# SE83-2048 Locus: 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA. Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find: SENIOR COUNSEL RAYMOND J. KENNEY, JR EDWARD F HENNESSEY (1949-2007) EPHRAIM MARTIN (1927-1988) HAROLD E. MAGNUSON (1938-1999) CLEMENT MCCARTHY (1951-1985) • ALSO ADMITTED IN CA ! ALSO ADMITTED IN CT ' ALSO ADMITTED IN NH + ALSO ADMITTED IN RI Yarmouth Conservation Commission EJAN2 8E RECEIVED 1) Copy of Request For Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form 2) Copy of filing fee check 3) Copy of Request For Superseding Order Of Conditions Very truly yours, Douglas A. Robertson DAR/mw Enclosure REQUEST FOR SUPERSEDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS RE: DEP File# SE83-2048 LOCUS: 188 BERRY AVENUE West Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02673 ARGUMENT Pursuant to MGL c 131 § 40, Paragraph 19, and 310 CMR 10.07(a), The Abutters, Janet and Michael, Trustees of the Durkin Trust, Owners of the abutting property at 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, ("Mr. and Mrs. Durkin") request that The Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") issue a Superseding Order Of Conditions, annulling and replacing the Order of Conditions dated 1/15/16 ("1/15/16 Order") issued by The Yarmouth Conservation Commission ("Yarmouth Commission"), concerning the proposed work at 188 Berry Avenue ("Subject Property"). Mr. and Mrs. Durkin respectfully request that upon conducting a de novo review, the DEP issue a superseding Order disapproving the work proposed in the Notice of Intent, dated 12/21/15, ("NOI") filed with the Yarmouth Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Durkin make this request because the 1/15/16 Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c 131 § 40) and is inconsistent with the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00). Mr. and Mrs. Durkin clearly and concisely object to the l/15/16 Order for the following reasons: The Subject Property is an area subject to protection under 131 §40 as set forth in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) and (d) because the land contains a coastal bank bordering on an estuary (Lewis Bay) and is land subject to coastal storm flowage ("LSCSF"). The most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency("FEMA") map, Panel 588, Barnstable County, dated 7/16/14, (full size and detail section enclosed) show the subject property has both VE(EL13) and AE(EL11) zones, and that the "limit of moderate wave action" area, at zone AE12, runs across the subject property just in front of the existing house structure. Because the NOI proposes to substantially enlarge the existing structure by 643 square feet (NOI site plan) as well as adding a new swimming pool and deck, new patios, and a new four car garage with living space and new bathrooms above the garage, totaling 2,904 square feet of new structures, and an enlarged septic system leaching into the ground, the applicant was required to file a NOI demonstrating to the Yarmouth Commission that the proposed work " will contribute to the protection of the interests identified in MGL c 131 §40 by complying with the general performance standards established by 310 CMR 10.00 for that area". 310 CMR 10.30 contains performance standards for coastal banks. 310 CMR10.00 does not contain performance standards for LSCSF. Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.30, the Yarmouth Commission was required to make a written determination that the coastal bank was either, or both, "significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it supplies sediment to coastal beaches... the ability of the coastal bank to erode in response to wave action is critical to protection of that interest(s)" and/or make a determination that the "coastal bank is significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it is a vertical buffer to storm waters, the stability of the bank, i.e., the natural resistance of the bank to erosion caused by wind, and rain runoff, is critical to the protection of that interest(s)". 2 The Yarmouth Commission failed to comply with 310 CMR 10.30, by failing to make the required determinations, despite the FEMA map showing moderate wave action coming over the top of the identified coastal bank, and spreading throughout the LSCSF area. Absent specific performance requirements, 310 CMR 10.21 requires, for LSCSF, that the proposed work "protect these characteristics and resources to the maximum extent permissible under MGL c 131 § 40" and that the Yarmouth Commission "issue specific measures and requirements for each proposed project that will ensure the project is designed and carried out consistent with the required level of protection". The Yarmouth Commission's 1/15/16 Order fails to comply with 310 CMR 10.21. Furthermore, 310 CMR 10.30(4) prohibits work and structures within 100 feet of the top of a coastal bank that have " an adverse effect due to wave action on the movement of sediment from the coastal bank to coastal beaches or land subject to tidal action". The proposed project includes expanded structures, patios, a pool and pool deck, a pool pump shed, a four car garage, and new leaching fields, all in the LSCSF, and all within 100 feet of the top of the coastal bank. By altering the LSCSF, the ability of the LSCSF to absorb water is compromised, and the ability of movement of sediment toward the coastal beach is compromised. The NOI did not include an engineer's report, by a registered professional engineer, with storm water flowage/ocean hydrology experience, to inform the Yarmouth Commission as to the consequences of the proposed work, and whether the work would have an adverse effect on the absorption of storm water and the movement of sediment. The Yarmouth Commission violated 310 CMR 10.30(4) when it issued the 1/15/16 Order, without adequate credible expert information concerning the project's impact on the protection of the interests identified in MGL c 131 § 40 and 310 CMR 10.00. 2. MGL c 131 § 40 prohibits work on a coastal bank, or on LSCSF, except when the work is "maintaining, repairing or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging any existing lawfully located structure..." The NOI describes work which adds 643 square feet to the existing house. This is not permitted by MGL c 131 § 40. The NOI describes a new Olympic pool and new four car garage and new leaching areas, all within the LSCSF, and all within 100 feet of the top of the coastal bank ("Buffer Zone" per 310 CMR 10.02(b), subject to protection by 131 § 40). The proposed work is prohibited by MGL c 131 §40. The Yarmouth Commission, by issuing the l/15116 Order, allowing the project to proceed, violated MGL c 131 § 40. 3. MGL c 131 § 40 requires the NOI be served on abutters. It is axiomatic that the notice to abutters be reasonably calculated to inform the abutters of the potential adverse impacts of the project on the interests protected by MGL c 131 §40. In this case, the NOI made no mention of the 7/16/14 FEMA map showing the subject property and the abutter's property, was all LSCSF during 100 year storms, or that the limit of moderate wave action fell in the proposed work area and within the Buffer Zone, nor did the NOI comply with DEP Wetlands Program Policy 92-1 concerning the required specificity when identifying a coastal bank, nor did the NOI even mention the wild water fowl feeding, over wintering and roosting habitat on the coastal bank, the top of which is under the existing front 4 patio of the house. Policy 92-1 requires identification of the "toe" of the coastal bank, the identification of which of the seven established DEP "figures" of coastal banks best matches the subject property, and submission of plan cross sections showing the coastal bank at each meaningful elevation. This was not done and the required information was not available to the Yarmouth Commission before it voted to approve the project. Likewise, even though protection of "wild life habitat" is an express interest under MGL c 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.01(2), the Yarmouth Commission elected to reject the abutter's offer that Mrs. Durkin testify and show photographs of the roosting overwintering water fowl living on the coastal bank. The Yarmouth Commission violated MGL c 131 §40 by acting without considering or addressing the existence of roosting wild water fowl, the failure to comply with DEP Policy 92-1, resulting in the incomplete and inaccurate location of the coastal bank and inadequate notice to abutters, and by acting without considering or addressing the FEMA map showing moderate wave action and storm water flowage in the project area. 4. MGL c 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) require, prior to filing a NOI, an applicant shall apply for "all permits, variances and approvals required by local by-law with respect to the proposed activity" that are "feasible to obtain". See Conservation Commission of Brockton v. Department of Environmental Protection, 81 Mass App Ct 601, 608(2012). 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) provides that approvals from local authorities of permits required for work on flood plains and wetlands are among the required permits to be obtained prior to filing for a NOI with the Conservation Commission. The Yarmouth Zoning By -Law, at 403.1 addresses building in Flood Zones A and V, which are the zones applicable to the subject property. At the 1/7/16 hearing, the applicant admitted a permit from the Yarmouth Board of Health would need to be obtained, concerning the expansion of the existing septic system and leaching fields. The NOI did not contain any engineering plans explaining how septic pipes and leaching fields would perform when the subject property was underwater during a 100 year storm. The Durkins submit the Yarmouth Conservation Commission violated 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) and MGL c 131 §40 when it voted on 1/7/16, and issued on 1/15/16 the Order of Conditions, without first requiring the applicant to obtain a Board of Health septic permit for the subject property. The Durkins further submit that the subject property should be required to comply with 310 CMR 15.00 (The State Environmental Code Regulating Septic Systems); and Policy BRP/DWM/PEP- P995 (Nitrogen Loading Limitations -System Upgrades In Sensitive Areas) (310 CMR 15.214) given the existing nitrogen overloading of Lewis Bay, reflected by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project report on Lewis Bay, copy enclosed. REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, Mr. and Mrs. Durkin, respectfully request that the DEP issue a Superseding Order of Conditions annulling the 1/15116 Order of Conditions, and rejecting the proposed project described in the NOI. Respectfully submitted, ou as A. Robertson BBO #552315 Attorney For Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of The Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, An Aggrieved Abutter Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 227-3240 dobertson@mmmk.com Dated: JanuaryZ-S', 2016 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: Request for Departmental Action Fee i q P sE83-20A8 Transmittal Form Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information 1. Location of Project 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmo,th 0.673 a. Street Address b. Cityfrown, Zip #114R1 $120 00 c. Check number d. Fee amount Important: 2 Person or a making request if appropriate, f name the citizen rou 's representative): When filling P party g q ( 9 P out forms on �4eha��, Janet Our , the computer, Name '11• use only the 15 Lewis Say Bo 1 lar6 tab key to Mailing Address move your WAst 'Xarmoiith MA 02673 Cursor - do MA State Zip Code not use the return key. Phone Number Fax Number (if applicable) ' Q 3. Applicant (as shown on Determination of Applicability (Form 2), Order of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4B), Order of Conditions (Form 5), Restoration Order of Conditions (Form 5A), or Notice of Non -Significance (Form 6)): Ali and Elaine Biadeliazari Name 18 Juniper Road Mailing Address Medway MA 02053 Cityfrown State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number (if applicable) 4. DEP File Number: SF:R3-204R B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for (check one): [� Superseding Order of Conditions — Fee: $120.00 (single family house projects) or $245 (all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability — Fee: $120 ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation — Fee: $120 Send this form and check or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 wattee.doc • rev. 12/15/14 Request for Departments] Action Fee Transmittal Form • Page 1 of 2 MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION The Lewis Bay Embayment System is a complex estuary located within the Towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth on Cape Cod, Massachusetts with a southern shore bounded by water from Nantucket Sound (Figure 1 -1 and 1-2). The estuary is composed of a lagoon formed behind a barrier spit (Dunbar Point) and bounded to the south by Smiths Point on Great Island. Lewis Bay is comprised of a number of sub-embayments tributary to the main basin such as Hyannis Inner Harbor, Mill Creek, and Uncle Roberts Cove. Just seaward of Dunbar Point which defines the entrance to the main basin of Lewis Bay is an area of previously open water that is currently sheltered by a constructed breakwater thereby defining what is commonly referred to as Hyannis Harbor into which discharges Stewarts Creek. The Lewis Bay watershed is also distributed only between the Town of Barnstable and the Town of Yarmouth. A large portion of the overall watershed includes the sub -watersheds contributing direct groundwater discharge to the estuary and contributing to the five surface water discharges flowing to the Hyannis Harbor portion of the system (Stewarts Creek), directly into Lewis Bay (Snows Creek, Creek from Hospital Bog) or into the salt marsh basin of Mill Creek (stream from Mill Pond and Chase Brook). Although land -uses closest to an embayment generally have greater impact than those in the upper portions of the watershed, which are subject to nitrogen attenuation during transport through natural aquatic systems (e.g. ponds, rivers, wetlands etc.) prior to discharge to the embayment, effective restoration of the Lewis Bay System, will require the Towns to be active in nutrient management throughout the watershed to the overall system. The number of sub-embayments (Hyannis Inner Harbor, Mill Creek, and Uncle Roberts Cove) to the Lewis Bay System greatly increases the shoreline and decreases the travel time of groundwater (and its pollutants) from the watershed recharge areas to bay regions of discharge. The nature of enclosed embayments in populous regions brings two opposing elements to bear: as protected marine shoreline they are popular regions for boating, recreation, and land development; as enclosed bodies of water, they may not be readily flushed of the pollutants that they receive due to the proximity and density of development near and along their shores. In particular, the Lewis Bay system and its sub-embayments along the Barnstable and Yarmouth shores are at risk of eutrophication (over enrichment) from high nitrogen loads in the groundwater and runoff from the associated watersheds. The Lewis Bay embayment system is a complex estuary with one inlet connecting the main basin to Nantucket Sound through the artificial basin of Hyannis Harbor. The Lewis Bay Embayment System consists primarily of the large main lagoonal basin of Lewis Bay with three tributary sub-embayments (Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). Lewis Bay terminates on its northern shore in two distinctly different aquatic environments, one being a salt marsh system commonly referred to as Mill Creek, the other being Hyannis Inner Harbor which services marinas, boatyards, restaurants and an active ferry terminal. The third sub-embayment is located on the barrier spit, Uncle Roberts Cove. Lewis Bay abuts Nantucket Sound and is bounded to the west by Kalmus Park Beach in the vicinity of the inlet to the estuary and Smiths Point located along the most eastern boundary of the entrance to Lewis Bay on Grand Island. The Lewis Bay Estuary receives twice daily tidal waters from Nantucket Sound. The inlet to Lewis Bay is a feature that prior to being armored, very likely migrated along the beach as a function of longshore transport of sediments and coastal storms effectively impinging on the waters of the § B IL 2 �. w §� § k � 7\ E@a f39 0 $ 0 E� §CL E k to �D d:0 eem� =2= �/�/ /�k� E��2 Lu m_ (D\02 @mc� a aco Cl) 0f �f cko_ m$$� �2�$ �aa2 a » m $4) 8 - m I12R w av l� _ c � � t § A k = 0f §2 $ 222r � 22■ fCO eo $�22 §_jJ� ■% of �c�o =—o �222 CO k U 2 a c co cu N ,L^ v a :o L_ 0_ N 4) to m L_ N O Z N L 7 m U s a m 0 N CD O E rn c a aD a a�Ei cn �m m J J N � r O� V CL a c� cca m MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT inlet. Even as an armored feature, the inlet to Lewis Bay is characterized by shifting sand shoals (Egg Island), which must be periodically dredged to maintain navigability of the channel in and out of the system. Currently, the armored inlet is stable and the Town of Barnstable periodically dredges the inlet channel to keep the inlet and Hyannis Harbor -Lewis Bay navigable. The present Lewis Bay system results from tidal flooding of small drowned river valleys formed primarily by the streams discharging into Stewarts Creek, Snows Creek and Mill Creek and the formation of the Lewis Bay lagoon by coastal processes. Drowning of the river valleys occurred gradually as a result of rising sea level following the last glaciation approximately 18,000 years BP. The extension of the barrier spit, is much more recent. The primary ecological threat to the Lewis Bay System as a coastal resource is degradation resulting from nutrient enrichment. Although the significantly enclosed portions of the Lewis Bay estuarine system (Stewarts Creek, Snows Creek, Hyannis Inner Harbor, Mill Creek, Uncle Roberts Cove) have varying and periodic levels of bacterial contamination related to stormwater run-off from the watershed, these do not appear to be having large system -wide impacts. Bacterial contamination causes periodic closures of shellfish harvest areas within the Mill Creek (SC28.5) sub-embayment as well as portions of Hyannis Inner Harbor (SC28.2), Snows Creek (SC28.8) and the northeastern shore of Lewis Bay (SC28.7). In contrast, loading of the critical eutrophying nutrient, nitrogen, to the Lewis Bay System has greatly increased over recent decades with further increases certain unless nitrogen management is implemented. The nitrogen loading to the Lewis Bay Estuary, like almost all embayments in southeastern Massachusetts, results primarily from on -site disposal of wastewater. The Towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth have been among the fastest growing towns in the Commonwealth over the past two decades. Hyannis is predominantly on municipal sewers in the dense downtown areas which flow to the Barnstable Wastewater Treatment Facility, with treated effluent discharged within the Lewis Bay, Hyannis Harbor (Stewarts Creek) and Halls Creek sub -watersheds. Even so, the vast majority of the Lewis Bay System watershed is not connected to any municipal sewerage system and wastewater treatment and disposal is primarily based on privately maintained septic systems. As existing and future increased levels of nutrients impact the coastal systems of Barnstable and Yarmouth, water quality degradation will accelerate, with further harm to invaluable environmental resources. As the primary stakeholder to the Lewis Bay System, the Towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth were among the first communities to become concerned over perceived degradation of the Bay's environments. The concern over declining habitat quality led directly to the establishment by both municipalities of comprehensive water quality monitoring programs aimed at determining the degree to which the waters of each Town might be impaired by nitrogen enrichment. The Towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth Water Quality Monitoring Programs coordinated efforts on the shared resource waters of Lewis Bay, with technical and analytical assistance provided by the Coastal Systems Program at SMAST-UMD. This successful joint effort provided the high quality quantitative water column nitrogen data (2001-2006) required for the implementation of the MEP's Linked Watershed-Embayment Approach used in the present study. The common focus of the coordinated Barnstable -Yarmouth Water Quality Monitoring effort has been to gather site -specific data on the current nitrogen related water quality throughout the Lewis Bay System and determine its relationship to watershed nitrogen loads. This multi -year effort has provided the necessary baseline information required for determining 4 MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT the link between upland loading, tidal flushing, and estuarine water quality. The MEP effort builds upon the Water Quality Monitoring Program, and considers as appropriate previous historical hydrodynamic analyses (conducted by ASA, Inc. for Tetra Tech EM, Inc.) and water quality analyses. The MEP approach includes high order biogeochemical analyses and water quality modeling necessary to develop critical nitrogen targets for each major sub-embayment. These critical nitrogen targets and the link to specific ecological criteria form the basis for the nitrogen threshold limits necessary to complete wastewater planning and nitrogen management alternatives development needed by the Town of Barnstable and Yarmouth. While the completion of this complex multi -step process of rigorous scientific investigation to support watershed based nitrogen management has taken place under the programmatic umbrella of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project, the results stem directly from the efforts of large number of Town staff and volunteers over many years, inclusive of members of the local non- governmental organization (NGO) Three Bays Preservation. The modeling tools developed as part of this program provide the quantitative information necessary for the Towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth to develop and evaluate the most cost effective nitrogen management alternatives to restore this valuable coastal resource which is currently being degraded by nitrogen overloading. It is important to note that the Lewis Bay System has been significantly altered by human activities over the past —100 years or more (see Section 1.2, below). As a result, the present nitrogen "overloading" appears to result partly from alterations to the geomorphology and some of its buffering ecological systems. These alterations subsequently affect nitrogen loading and transport within the watershed and influence the degree to which nitrogen loads impact the estuary. Therefore, restoration of this system should focus on managing nitrogen through both management of nitrogen loading within the watershed and restoration/management of processes which serve to lessen the amount or impact of nitrogen entering the estuary. 1.1 THE MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT APPROACH Coastal embayments throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and along the U.S. eastern seaboard) are becoming nutrient enriched. The nutrients are primarily related to changes in watershed land -use associated with increasing population within the coastal zone over the past half century. Many of Massachusetts' embayments have nutrient levels that are approaching or are currently over this assimilative capacity, which begins to cause declines in their ecological health. The result is the loss of fisheries habitat, eelgrass beds, and a general disruption of benthic communities and the food chain which they support. At higher levels, nitrogen loading from surrounding watersheds causes aesthetic degradation and inhibits even recreational uses of coastal waters. In addition to nutrient related ecological declines, an increasing number of embayments are being closed to swimming, shellfishing and other activities as a result of bacterial contamination. While bacterial contamination does not generally degrade the habitat, it restricts human uses. However like nutrients, bacterial contamination is frequently related to changes in land -use as watersheds become more developed. The regional effects of both nutrient loading and bacterial contamination span the spectrum from environmental to socio-economic impacts and have direct consequences to the culture, economy, and tax base of Massachusetts's coastal communities. The primary nutrient causing the increasing impairment of the Commonwealth's coastal embayments is nitrogen and the primary sources of this nitrogen are wastewater disposal, fertilizers, and changes in the freshwater hydrology associated with development. At present there is a critical need for state-of-the-art approaches for evaluating and restoring nitrogen sensitive and impaired embayments. Within southeastern Massachusetts alone, almost all of MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT the municipalities are grappling with Comprehensive Wastewater Planning and/or environmental management issues related to the declining health of their estuaries, such is the present situation with the Towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth. Municipalities are seeking guidance on the assessment of nitrogen sensitive embayments, as well as available options for meeting nitrogen goals and approaches for restoring impaired systems. Many of the communities have encountered problems with "first generation" watershed based approaches, which do not incorporate estuarine processes. The appropriate method must be quantitative and directly link watershed and embayment nitrogen conditions. This "Linked" Modeling approach must also be readily calibrated, validated, and implemented to support planning. Although it may be technically complex to implement, results must be understandable to the regulatory community, town officials, and the general public. The Massachusetts Estuaries Project represents the next generation of watershed based nitrogen management approaches. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), the University of Massachusetts — Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST), and others including the Cape Cod Commission (CCC) have undertaken the task of providing a quantitative tool for watershed-embayment management for communities throughout Southeastern Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Estuary Project is founded upon science -based management. The Project is using a consistent, state-of-the-art approach throughout the region's coastal waters and providing technical expertise and guidance to the municipalities and regulatory agencies tasked with their management, protection, and restoration. The overall goal of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project is to provide the DEP and municipalities with technical guidance to support policies on nitrogen loading to embayments. In addition, the technical reports prepared for each embayment system will serve as the basis for the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Development of TMDLs is required pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. TMDLs must identify sources of the pollutant of concern (in this case nitrogen) from both point and non -point sources, the allowable load to meet the state water quality standards and then allocate that load to all sources taking into consideration a margin of safety, seasonal variations, and several other factors. In addition, each TMDL must contain an outline of an implementation plan. For this project, the DEP recognizes that there are likely to be multiple ways to achieve the desired goals, some of which are more cost effective than others and therefore, it is extremely important for each Town to further evaluate potential options suitable to their community. As such, DEP will likely be recommending that specific activities and timelines be further evaluated and developed by the Towns (sometimes jointly) through the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Planning process. In appropriate estuaries, bacterial technical reports will be developed in support of a Cape Cod wide TMDL for bacterial contamination. As possible, these analyses of bacterial contamination will be conducted in concert with the nutrient effort (particularly if there is a 303d listing), as was the case for the Prince's Cove sub-embayment to the Three Bays system. Currently, the MEP (through SMAST) has not been tasked with a technical assessment of bacterial contamination in the Lewis Bay System for inclusion of this system into the Cape Cod wide bacterial TMDL that the MassDEP is in the process of producing. The MEP nitrogen threshold analysis includes site -specific habitat assessments and watershed/embayment modeling approaches to develop and assess various nitrogen management alternatives for meeting selected nitrogen goals supportive of restoration/protection of embayment health. A MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT The major MEP nitrogen management goals are to: • provide technical analysis and supporting documentation to Towns as a basis for sound nutrient management decision making towards embayment restoration • develop a coastal TMDL working group for coordination and rapid transfer of results, • determine the nutrient sensitivity of each of the 89 embayments in Southeastern MA • provide necessary data collection and analysis required for quantitative modeling, • conduct quantitative TMDL analysis, outreach, and planning, • keep each embayment's model "alive" to address future municipal needs. The core of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project analytical method is the Linked Watershed-Embayment Management Modeling Approach. This approach represents the "next generation" of nitrogen management strategies. It fully links watershed inputs with embayment circulation and nitrogen characteristics. The Linked Model builds on and refines well accepted basic watershed nitrogen loading approaches such as those used in the Buzzards Bay Project, the CCC models, and other relevant models. However, the Linked Model differs from other nitrogen management models in that it: • requires site specific measurements within each watershed and embayment; • uses realistic "best -estimates" of nitrogen loads from each land -use (as opposed to loads with built-in "safety factors" like Title 5 design loads); • spatially distributes the watershed nitrogen loading to the embayment; • accounts for nitrogen attenuation during transport to the embayment; • includes a 2D or 3D embayment circulation model depending on embayment structure; • accounts for basin structure, tidal variations, and dispersion within the embayment; • includes nitrogen regenerated within the embayment; • is validated by both independent hydrodynamic, nitrogen concentration, and ecological data; • is calibrated and validated with field data prior to generation of "what if' scenarios. The Linked Model has been applied for watershed nitrogen management in approximately 30 embayments throughout southeastern Massachusetts. In these applications it has become clear that the Linked Model Approach's greatest assets are its ability to be clearly calibrated and validated, and its utility as a management tool for testing "what if' scenarios for evaluating watershed nitrogen management options. The Linked Watershed-Embayment Model when properly parameterized, calibrated and validated for a given embayment becomes a nitrogen management planning tool, which fully supports TMDL analysis. The Model facilitates the evaluation of nitrogen management alternatives relative to meeting water quality targets within a specific embayment. The Linked Watershed-Embayment Model also enables Towns to evaluate improvements in water quality relative to the associated cost. In addition, once a model is fully functional it can be "kept alive" and updated for continuing changes in land -use or embayment characteristics (at minimal cost). In addition, since the Model uses a holistic approach (the entire watershed, embayment and tidal source waters), it can be used to evaluate all projects as they relate directly or indirectly to water quality conditions within its geographic boundaries. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model Overview. The Model provides a quantitative approach for determining an embayment's: (1) nitrogen sensitivity, (2) nitrogen threshold loading levels (TMDL) and (3) response to changes in loading rate. The approach is both calibrated and fully field validated and unlike many approaches, accounts for nutrient sources, 7 MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT attenuation, and recycling and variations in tidal hydrodynamics (Figure 1-3). This methodology integrates a variety of field data and models, specifically: • Water column Monitoring - multi -year embayment nutrient sampling • Hydrodynamics - - embayment bathymetry - site specific tidal record - current records (in complex systems only) - hydrodynamic model • Watershed Nitrogen Loading - watershed delineation - stream flow (Q) and nitrogen load - land -use analysis (GIS) - watershed N model • Embayment TMDL - Synthesis - linked Watershed-Embayment N Model - salinity surveys (for linked model validation) - rate of N recycling within embayment - D.O record - Macrophyte survey - Infaunal survey 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The Lewis Bay Embayment System exchanges tidal water with Nantucket Sound through one inlet at the southern end of the system demarcated by a barrier spit (Dunbar Point) and bounded to the south by Smiths Point on Great Island. The inlet connecting Lewis Bay to Hyannis Harbor on the seaward side of Dunbar Point is maintained by periodic dredging and is armored on the west side and remains in a "natural" un-stabilized state on the east side (Smiths Point). Nantucket Sound exhibits a moderate to low tide range, with a mean range of about 2.5 ft. Since the water elevation difference between Nantucket Sound and the Lewis Bay System is the primary driving force for tidal exchange, the local tide range naturally limits the volume of water flushed during a tidal cycle (note the tide range off Stage Harbor Chatham is -4.5 ft, Wellfleet Harbor is -10 ft). Tidal damping (reduction in tidal amplitude) through an embayment can range from negligible, indicating "well -flushed" conditions, or show tidal attenuation caused by constricted channels and marsh plains, indicating a "restrictive" system, where tidal flow and the associated flushing are inhibited. Tidal data indicate only minimal tidal damping through the inlet into the Lewis Bay system. It appears that the tidal inlet is operating efficiently being that it is periodically dredged to maintain navigability. Within the Hyannis Inner Harbor, Mill Creek and Uncle Roberts Cove portion of the System, the tide propagates to the sub-embayments with negligible attenuation, consistent with generally well -flushed conditions throughout. For the MEP analysis, the Lewis Bay Estuarine System has been partitioned into four general sub-embayment groups: the 1) Lewis Bay, 2) Hyannis Inner Harbor, 3) Mill Creek, and 4) Uncle Roberts Cove as depicted in Figure 1-1. Hyannis Harbor with Stewarts Creek was examined as an outer basin as it effects the boundary waters of Nantucket Sound which flow through it to Lewis Bay. 0 U w O lz a w G' Q H H W N F H w N D S U Q Vl N Q V/ ■ ffa cu W ma O ^U) W L W 0 L. f f� z L v 0 CL c. Q 0 c Q v 0 m t H c N Z Fu U w U 0 CL 4) m 7 aD (A LU N N 7 L U m N N m 2 LL MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT The overall Lewis Bay System supports a diversity of estuarine habitats, including the main open water embayment basin of Lewis Bay, the salt marshes of Snow Creek and Mill Creek and the dredged harbor basin of Hyannis Inner Harbor. The Mill Creek basin functions primarily as a salt marsh "pond" of shallow depth with large bordering tidal marshes. Mill Creek is a moderately nutrient enriched sub -basin. However, as to the extent that it is functioning as primarily a salt marsh basin, it's level of impairment has been unclear. The present MEP analysis takes into account the much lower sensitivity of salt marshes to nutrient inputs compared to tidal embayments, so as to establish the proper nutrient threshold for restoration/protection of this estuarine system. Most of the Lewis Bay System's salt marsh area is to the north and associated with Mill Creek with shallow tidal flats and large fluctuating salinity. In contrast, the main basin of Lewis Bay shows more typical embayment characteristics with a mixture of open water areas and channels, small fringing salt marshes and relatively stable salinity gradients. 1.3 NUTRIENT LOADING Surface and groundwater flows are pathways for the transfer of land -sourced nutrients to coastal waters. Fluxes of primary ecosystem structuring nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, differ significantly as a result of their hydrologic transport pathway (i.e. streams versus groundwater). In sandy glacial outwash aquifers, such as in the watershed to the Lewis Bay System, phosphorus is highly retained during groundwater transport as a result of sorption to aquifer minerals (Weiskel and Howes 1992). Since even Cape Cod "rivers" are primarily groundwater fed, watersheds tend to release little phosphorus to coastal waters. In contrast, nitrogen, primarily as plant available nitrate, is readily transported through oxygenated groundwater systems on Cape Cod (DeSimone and Howes 1998, Weiskel and Howes 1992, Smith et al. 1991). The result is that terrestrial inputs to coastal waters tend to be higher in plant available nitrogen than phosphorus (relative to plant growth requirements). However, coastal estuaries tend to have algal growth limited by nitrogen availability, due to their flooding with low nitrogen coastal waters (Ryther and Dunstan 1971). Tidal reaches within the Lewis Bay Estuary follow this general pattern, where the primary nutrient of eutrophication in these systems is nitrogen. Nutrient related water quality decline represents one of the most serious threats to the ecological health of the nearshore coastal waters. Coastal embayments, because of their enclosed basins, shallow waters and large shoreline area, are generally the first indicators of nutrient pollution from terrestrial sources. By nature, these systems are highly productive environments, but nutrient over -enrichment of these systems worldwide is resulting in the loss of their aesthetic, economic and commercially valuable attributes. Each embayment system maintains a capacity to assimilate watershed nitrogen inputs without degradation. However, as loading increases a point is reached at which the capacity (termed assimilative capacity) is exceeded and nutrient related water quality degradation occurs. This point can be termed the "nutrient threshold" and in estuarine management this threshold sets the target nutrient level for restoration or protection. Because nearshore coastal salt ponds and embayments are the primary recipients of nutrients carried via surface and groundwater transport from terrestrial sources, it is clear that activities within the watershed, often miles from the water body itself, can have chronic and long lasting impacts on these fragile coastal environments. 10 MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT Protection and restoration of coastal embayments from nitrogen overloading has resulted in a focus on determining the assimilative capacity of these aquatic systems for nitrogen. While this effort is ongoing (e.g. USEPA TMDL studies), southeastern Massachusetts has been the site of intensive efforts in this area (Eichner et al., 1998, Costa et al., 1992 and in press, Ramsey et al., 1995, Howes and Taylor, 1990, and the Falmouth Coastal Overlay Bylaw). While each approach may be different, they all focus on changes in nitrogen loading from watershed to embayment, and aim at projecting the level of increase in nitrogen concentration within the receiving waters. Each approach depends upon estimates of circulation within the embayment; however, few directly link the watershed and hydrodynamic models, and virtually none include internal recycling of nitrogen (as was done in the present effort). However, determination of the "allowable N concentration increase" or "threshold nitrogen concentration" used in previous studies had a significant uncertainty due to the need for direct linkage of watershed and embayment models and site -specific data. In the present effort we have integrated site -specific data on nitrogen levels and the gradient in N concentration throughout the Lewis Bay System monitored by the Town of Barnstable and Yarmouth. Data from the Water Quality Monitoring Program combined with site -specific habitat quality data (D.O., eelgrass, phytoplankton blooms, benthic animals) was utilized to "tune" general nitrogen thresholds typically used by the Cape Cod Commission, Buzzards Bay Project, and Massachusetts State Regulatory Agencies. Unfortunately, almost all of the estuarine reaches within the Lewis Bay System are presently beyond their ability to assimilate additional nutrients without impacting their ecological health (nitrogen related habitat impairment). Nitrogen levels are elevated throughout the System and eelgrass beds have been lost from this system for more than a decade. Nitrogen related habitat impairment within the Lewis Bay Estuary shows a gradient of high to low moving from the inland, less well flushed sub -basins, to the tidal inlet. The result is that nitrogen management of the Lewis Bay System is aimed at restoration, not protection or maintenance of existing conditions. In general, nutrient over -fertilization is termed "eutrophication" and in certain instances can occur naturally over long periods of time. When the nutrient loading is rapid and primarily from human activities leading to changes in a coastal watershed, nutrient enrichment of coastal waters is termed "cultural eutrophication". Although it is clear that human - induced changes have increased nitrogen loading to this estuary and contributed to the degradation of its resources, the MEP analysis also examined the level to which eutrophication within the Lewis Bay sub-embayments (e.g. Uncle Roberts Cove, Mill Creek, Snows Creek, Stewarts Creek, Halls Creek) could potentially result from natural processes. Both natural and human -induced changes to an estuary must be considered in the nutrient threshold analysis. While this finding would not change the need for restoration, it would change the approach and potential targets for management. As part of future restoration efforts, it is important to understand that it may not be possible to turn each embayment or sub-embayment into a "pristine" system. 1.4 WATER QUALITY MODELING Evaluation of upland nitrogen loading provides important "boundary conditions" (e.g. watershed derived and offshore nutrient inputs) for water quality modeling of the Lewis Bay System; however, a thorough understanding of estuarine circulation is required to accurately determine nitrogen concentrations within each component of the system. Therefore, water quality modeling of tidally influenced estuaries must include a thorough evaluation of the hydrodynamics of the estuarine system. Estuarine hydrodynamics control a variety of coastal processes including tidal flushing, pollutant dispersion, tidal currents, sedimentation, erosion, and water levels. Numerical models provide a cost-effective method for evaluating tidal 11 MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT hydrodynamics since they require limited data collection and may be utilized to numerically assess a range of management alternatives. Once the hydrodynamics of an estuary system are understood, computations regarding the related coastal processes become relatively straightforward extensions to the hydrodynamic modeling. The spread of pollutants may be analyzed from tidal current information developed by the numerical models. The MEP water quality evaluation examined the potential impacts of nitrogen loading into the Lewis Bay System, including the tributary sub-embayments of Snows Creek, Hyannis Inner Harbor, Mill Creek, and Uncle Roberts Cove. A two-dimensional depth -averaged hydrodynamic model based upon the tidal currents and water elevations was employed for each of the systems. Once the hydrodynamic properties of each estuarine system were computed, two- dimensional water quality model simulations were used to predict the dispersion of the nitrogen at current loading rates. Using standard dispersion relationships for estuarine systems of this type, the water quality model and the hydrodynamic models were then integrated in order to generate estimates regarding the spread of total nitrogen from the site -specific hydrodynamic properties. The distributions of nitrogen loads from watershed sources were determined from land -use analysis, based upon watershed delineations by USGS using a modification of the West Cape model for sub -watershed areas designated by MEP. Almost all watershed sourced nitrogen entering the Lewis Bay System is transported by freshwater, predominantly groundwater. Concentrations of total nitrogen and salinity of Nantucket Sound source waters and throughout the Lewis Bay system were provided by the coordinated Town of Barnstable and Yarmouth Water Quality Monitoring Program. Measurements of the salinity and nitrogen distributions throughout estuarine waters of the Lewis Bay System (2001-2006) were used to calibrate and validate the water quality model (under existing loading conditions). 1.5 REPORT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results generated from the implementation of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project linked watershed-embayment approach to the Lewis Bay System for the Towns of Barnstable and Yarmouth. A review of existing water quality studies is provided (Section II). The development of the watershed delineations and associated detailed land use analysis for watershed based nitrogen loading to the coastal system is described in Sections III and IV. In addition, nitrogen input parameters to the water quality model are described. Since benthic flux of nitrogen from bottom sediments is a critical (but often overlooked) component of nitrogen loading to shallow estuarine systems, determination of the site -specific magnitude of this component also was performed (Section IV). Nitrogen loads from the watershed and sub - watershed surrounding the estuary were derived from Cape Cod Commission data and offshore water column nitrogen values were derived from an analysis of monitoring stations in Nantucket Sound (Section IV). Intrinsic to the calibration and validation of the linked -watershed embayment modeling approach is the collection of background water quality monitoring data (conducted by municipalities) as discussed in Section IV. Results of hydrodynamic modeling of embayment circulation are discussed in Section V and nitrogen (water quality) modeling, as well as an analysis of how the measured nitrogen levels correlate to observed estuarine water quality are described in Section VI. This analysis includes modeling of current conditions, conditions at watershed build -out, and with removal of anthropogenic nitrogen sources. In addition, an ecological assessment of the component sub-embayments was performed that included a review of existing water quality information and the results of a benthic analysis (Section VII). The modeling and assessment information is synthesized and nitrogen threshold levels developed for restoration/protection of the Bay in Section Vill. Additional modeling is 12 MASSACHUSETTS ESTUARIES PROJECT conducted to produce an example of the type of watershed nitrogen reduction required to meet the determined system threshold for restoration or protection. This latter assessment represents only one of many solutions and is produced to assist the Towns in developing a variety of alternative nitrogen management options for this system. Finally, analyses of the Lewis Bay System were undertaken relative to potential alterations of circulation and flushing, including an analysis to identify hydrodynamic restrictions and an examination of dredging options to improve nitrogen related water quality. The results of the nitrogen modeling for each scenario have been presented in Section IX. I� CO_MMI ONTWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BARNSTABLE, SS MICHAEL AND JANET DURKIN TRUSTEES OF THE DURKIN TRUST, OWNERS OF 15 LEWIS BAY BOULEVARD, YARMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS Plaintiffs VS. YARMOUTH CONSERVATION COMMISSION, BY AND THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONERS, EDWARD HOOPES, TOM DURKIN, JOAN CARR, PHIL JOHNSTON, RICK BISHOP, AUDREY RUSSANO, AND MAUREEN GALLAGHER Defendants BARNSTABLE DIVISION CA NO. COMPLAINT SUBJECT MATTER Yarmouth Conservation Commission JAA 2 7 2016 RECEIVED This COMPLAINT is an Appeal pursuant to Chapter 143-10 of The Town of Yarmouth Wetland By Law, of a vote taken by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission on 1/7/16, on the Notice of Intent filed for 188 Berry Avenue, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, DEP File# SE83-2048, and an Order of Conditions ("Order") issued on 1/15/16. This Appeal is of the Yarmouth Conservation Commission's actions and determinations made pursuant to Yarmouth Town By Law, Chapter 143, Wetlands, and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, including without limitation, Part 1, sections 1.01-1.09, Part 2, sections 2.01-2.12. e V-0 I 1 . JURISDICTION Town of Yarmouth, By -Law Chapter 143-10, vests this court with specific jurisdiction to hear the Appeal of any Order of The Conservation Commission, and " hear all evidence pertinent to the authority and findings of the Commission and determine the facts and, upon the facts so determined, annul such decision if found to exceed the authority of The Commission or make such other decree as justice and equity may require." THE PARTIES 1. The plaintiffs, Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of the Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, ("The Durkin") are an aggrieved abutter to the proposed substantial changes, enlargement, new construction, and new septic facilities, at 188 Berry Avenue, Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the procedural and substantive violations of: (1) Yarmouth By Law Chapter 143, and (2) The Town Of Yarmouth, Wetlands Protection Regulations, committed by The Town of Yarmouth Conservation ("Yarmouth Conservation Commission") prior to and during the 1/7/16 public hearing concerning the Notice of Intent filed by Ali R. and Elaine R. Bigdelizari, concerning 188 Berry Avenue, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, ("subject property") committed by The Yarmouth Conservation Commission when it voted on 1/7/16 to issue an Order with respect to the subject property, and committed by The Yarmouth Conservation Commission when it issued the Order dated 1/15/16 concerning the subject property. 2. The defendant, Yarmouth Conservation Commission, whose voting members on 1/7/16, 2 and who signed the Order on 1115116, are Edward Hoopes, Tom Durkin, Phil Johnston, Rick Bishop, Audrey Russano, and Maureen Gallagher, collectively constitute the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, which is charged by Town of Yarmouth By Law Chapter 143 and The Town of Yarmouth, Wetland Protection Regulations, with the obligation and responsibility "to protect the foreshores, wetlands and groundwater supply of The Town of Yarmouth by controlling activities deemed to have significant effect on wetland water quality values, including but not limited to the following: public or private water supply, ground water, flood control, erosion control, storm damage, water pollution, fisheries, shellfish, wildlife and recreation" (By Law Chapter 143-1) and which is specifically and expressly subject to suit by By Law Chapter 143-10. THE CLAIM The plaintiffs contend that the defendant acted in violation of Yarmouth By Law Chapter 143, and The Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, in contravention to, and in excess of, the authority vested in the defendant by Chapter 143 and the Wetland Protection Regulations, when the defendant voted on 1/7/16 to issue an Order allowing the proposed substantial changes and enlargements, new construction, and new septic facilities at the subject property, and on 1 /15/16 when the defendant issued the Order approving its 1/7/16 vote. The plaintiffs contend the defendant violated the aforesaid By Laws and By Law regulations in the manner described below: 1. By Law 143-2(A) requires the applicant file "all plans as may be necessary to describe such proposed activity and its effect on the environment". 2. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 1.09(2)(a) requires all notice of intent ("NOI") be accompanied by "plans prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor or qualified professional engineer, whichever is applicable." 3. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 1.09(2)(d) require plans to show and label all "Resource Areas." (1.04 defining "Resource Areas".) 4. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 1.02(1)(h), 1.04 defining "Resource Area" and 2.10, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, ("LSCSF") defining LSCSF as areas landward of the ocean's estuaries, during a 100 year storm, as designated by "the latest flood insurance rate maps provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency". 5. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations define the ocean estuary in front of the subject property, Lewis Bay, as a "Major Estuary". (Regs, at 1.04) 6. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, 2.10(3) Performance Standards, limit work on septic systems in LSCSF, to "repairs" to "existing septic systems", provided they meet Titles and local board of health thresholds. 7. Yarmouth Conservation Commission violated the By Law and By Law regulations by voting to issue an Order when the applicant's plans: (a) were not prepared by, or stamped by, a qualified professional engineer, with demonstrable experience in septic deign, buildings subject to wave action and storm flowage during 100 year storms, and delineation of FEMA Flood zone designations from FEMA's most recent 7/16/14 flood maps onto proposed building plans; (b) had a land surveyor locate AE(EL 11) and VE(EL13) flood elevation areas on the NOI site plan, without any mention of, or reference to, Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, at 2.10(2), which expressly requires locating LSCSF and 4 associated flood elevations by using the most recent FEVIA map, the 7/16/14 map, which was presented to each conservation member on 1/7/16, by the plaintiff s advocate, and summarily rejected by each member of the conservation commission; (c) the NOI site plan fails to show the LSCSF on the subject property and the abutting properties, as required by regulation 1.09(2)(d), and fails to show the "limit of moderate wave action" line at "Zone AE12, as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14, which depicts the moderate wave action line during a 100 year storm as being at the seaward edge of the existing house structure, along the "top of the coastal bank" as depicted on the NOI site plan; (d) despite these glaring omissions from the NOI plans, and despite the applicant having the "burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the activities proposed in the application will not harm the interests protected by this By Law" (Regs. 1.03(2)) the conservation commission disregarded the FEMA 7/16/14 maps and flooding information, including where waves would be breaking on the applicant's front lawn, and voted on plans devoid of the latest FEMA information, an express violation of Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulation 2.10(2) and 1.04 "Definitions" concerning land within 300 feet on a major estuary, which require the conservation commission to use and follow the latest FEMA mapping; (e) the plans and NOI call for expanded living space in the existing house and over the new four car garage, requiring expanded septic capacity, to be constructed in a "Resource Area", LSCSF, without submission of any stamped engineering plan, as required by By Law 143-2 and Regulation 1.09(2)(a), and in violation of Regulation 2.10(3) which expressly limits septic work on LSCSF to "existing septic systems and cesspool repairs". The Conservation Commission violated the regulation when it voted to issue an Order without any engineering plans showing only repairs to an existing system which would not adversely affect the Resource Area, LSCSF, during a 100 year storm. 8. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 1.09, 1.05(4)(a), 2.05(Coastal Banks), and Wetlands Program Policy 92-1, require a coastal bank be identified by following policy 92-1, including locating the toe of the bank, identifying which of the seven figures in 92-1 best describes the coastal bank, and providing cross sections of the coastal bank. The applicant's NOI, at the 1 /7/16 hearing, failed to comply with these requirements. The plaintiff told the Conservation Commission the NOI was defective due to inadequate information about the coastal bank and therefore there was inadequate notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff advised the Conservation Commission that the coastal bank was not properly located, so the required setbacks from the coastal bank (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 1.09(4)(c)(1)(b) and 2.05) prohibiting new structures within 50 feet of a coastal bank) were not properly delineated in the NOI plans. Instead of continuing the hearing, and requiring the applicant to submit fully compliant plans and calculations, the Conservation Commission voted on the incomplete, inadequate and inaccurate NOI and plans, failed to follow the procedural and substantive provisions of By Law Chapter 143 and the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, and improperly voted to approve the project. 9. The NOI site plan shows a new, Olympic sized pool, with more than half of the new pool closer than 50 feet to the top of the coastal bank shown on the plan. The NOI plan shows 1,692 square feet of the new construction and expansion in the 50 foot no build zone. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, at section 1.09(4)(c)(1)(b) prohibits new structures within 50 feet of a coastal bank. Yarmouth Regulation 1.04 defines "structure" to include "pool". The Conservation Commission voted to allow the project, despite the pool and structures violating its own regulations. 10. Yarmouth By Law 143-2(A) prohibits altering land subject to coastal storm flowage, unless "maintaining, repairing or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging, an existing... structure". The proposed project in the NOI on the subject property adds a big pool and a huge garage, with living space, and additional septic and leaching facilities, all in violation of By Law 143. The NOI plan states that the project will add 2,904 square feet of new and additional structures. The Conservation Commission rejected the plaintiffs objections on this point at the 1/7/16 hearing, despite agreeing that the Conservation Commission does not allow new work in a Resource Area. The Conservation Commission's vote to allow substantial enlargement of the existing house, and building a new pool and garage, all in the LSCSF Resource Area, was a clear violation of By Law 143, 11. At the outset of the 1/7/16 hearing, the plaintiffs informed the Conservation Commission of the existence of year round water fowl living along the water's edge of the LSCSF and coastal bank, seaward of the existing house at 188 Berry M Avenue. Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations at section 2.05 and 2.10 state that projects within these resource areas "are likely to have adverse impacts on ...... wildlife and wildlife habitat". (See 2.10(1)(g)(h)). The applicant had the burden to show no such adverse impact. (Regs 1.03) The plaintiffs offered to have Ms. Janet Durkin testify about, and show photographs of, the wild water fowl. The Conservation Commission elected to proceed to a vote, without hearing from Mrs. Durkin, without asking the applicant for information about the wild water fowl, and without addressing the wild water fowl habitat. For the reasons set forth in the supporting report of Diane Boretos, Senior Wetland Biologist (Exhibit "A") the Conservation Commission vote and the Order which issued, violated By Law Chapter 143 and the Town of Yarmouth Wetland Regulations 2.10(1). 12. At the 1/7/16 hearing, the plaintiffs gave The Conservation Commission the 7/16/14 FEMA map showing that the entire subject property, and the plaintiffs' property, are in the AE(EL 11) zone, and it all is LSCSF. The applicant's NOi incorrectly states only "5600 square feet" of the subject property as LSCSF. The Conservation Commission issued its Order based on the applicant's incorrect information and based on a failure to understand the FEMA map designations of the entire subject property as LSCSF. 13. As stated at the 1/7/16 hearing, the plaintiffs are aggrieved abutters, with property directly landward of the subject property, also LSCSF, and if the proposed 2,904 square feet of new and expanded structures is allowed, the loss of absorbent LSCSF is presumed to have adverse impact on storm damage protection, 8 IN prevention of pollution, prevention of septic systems discharging into the storm waters, and the return of sediment to the estuary during storms. (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10.) The practical effect of such a project will be to intensify storm water flow, and associated adverse impacts, onto the plaintiffs' property. The project will also disrupt and destroy the existing wild water fowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. Because the NOI and NOI site plan were inadequate, inaccurate and incomplete, the plaintiffs were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to fully and fairly respond to and oppose the NOI at the 1/7/16 hearing. REQUESTETD RELIEF _ WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order annulling the 1/15/16 Order of Conditions; enter an Order requiring that any future NOI fling regarding the subject property be accompanied by a full size 7/16/14 FEMA Map, Panel 588, showing all storm flooding zones and information relevant to the subject property; enter an Order requiring that any future NOI filings regarding the subject property be accompanied by a signed and stamped engineering plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer, qualified in hydrology and storm water flowage, including velocity zones and limits the moderate wave action areas impacting LSCSF during 100 year storms, and delineating all applicable flooding zones per the 2014 FEMA Map Panel 588; and enter an Order that any future NOI for the subject property include an engineering analysis of storm water flowage onto the abutter's property, under existing conditions, and under the conditions presented by any new structures and/or substantial enlargement of existing structures on the subject property, Dated: January2-5,72016 10 Respectfidly submitted, ougl A. Robertson BBO #552315 Attorney For Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of The Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, An Aggrieved Abutter Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 227-3240 drobertson@mmmk.com r Town of Yarmouth, MA - Official Website - 2014 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Page 1 of 3 Home I Jobs I Contact Ul Sitemap I Intranet Jr1 PINT 1 r" 1 E YA& 1 ` -'. Ras ABUT OUT YARMOLT,H GUYLVISIMe4l DUNG SUSIN ss VSI71N'G I WAW TO... i.T� _ _SEARCH �'e, Home • Government • Departmems - Community Development & Planning • Planning • 2014 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps ,11111t.tt(:,s & 2014 Adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the -;et,, a� . Town of Yarmouth ( ale f1t1E'f 13 Updated October 19, 2015 Love & vidipo oll The Town of Yarmouth has officially adopted the 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Town of Yarmouth, which became effective on Deiii,ind July 16, 2014_ The FIRM maps show areas in town known as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These are areas where the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) floodplain management regulations must be enforced and where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance Oplille applies for those with federally backed bank mortgages. Those within a SFHA who do not have a setvit"c-'x mortgage may not be required to obtain flood insurance, but they are still at risk of flooding and would benefit from flood insurance. Please note that properties outside these designated SFHAs may also be at risk of flooding and may also benefit from flood insurance. Questions about flood insurance should be directed to your insurance agent. IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THOSE NEWLY MAPPED INTO A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. If the July 16, 2014 FIRM maps have your property being mapped Into a Special Flood Hazard Area for the first time, you may qualify for a Preferred Risk Policy and may be eligible to gamer benefits associated with the Preferred Risk Policy Eligibility Extension. Obtaining a Preferred Risk Policy now (even if you don't have a mortgage) may allow for you to retain this lower rate flood insurance policy for longer and may allow for the transfer of this policy to a future owner, making your property more marketable. Please ask your insurance agent about whether your property would qualify for a Preferred Risk Policy. In addition, if any portion of your property is in a SFHA, your mortgage holder may have sent you a letter saying that you need flood insurance. However, if based on your review of the FIRM Map, you believe your house and everything attached to it (garage, deck, etc) is outside the SFHA, you may request a Flood Hazard Determination Review from FEMA. The process is outlined at the following website and must be submitted within 45 days following the date the lender notified the borrower that the property is in an SFHA. Yarmouth's FIRM Community Number is 250015. http�udwww.fema.goy/natlon8,-flQo ,-insurance-program/how-request-Flood-hazard- determjn�ton_,-,Cgview-fema Map ReviewincL Locations: The easiest way to view the FIRM maps is on the updated FEMA website at https://msc.fema.goy/portal. From this website, you can type in your full address. Using the buttons on the left choose "INTERACTIVE MAP". This will show the FEMA FIRM map for your property in a much more legible format with aerial imagery. You can change the background by clicking the "BASEMAP" icon in the upper left hand comer and you can also print out the map. You can type in your address again in the upper right hand comer to Zoom into your property. Copies of the FIRM maps may also be viewed at the links below. To identify your property's flood zone, click on the Town of Yarmouth index to locate your panel number and then click on the appropriate FEMA Map number below. In addition to the FEMA Maps, the Town of Yarmouth created an easier to read color -coded aftemative map showing the SFHAs with approximate property lines and structure locations. Click on the Entire Town GIS Map link listed below. A hard copy of the Town GIS Map is available in the Engineering Department and hard copies of the FIRM Maps are available for viewing in the Building Department, both located on the lower level of Town Hall at 1146 Route 28, South Yarmouth. http://www.yarmo�,ith.ma.us/index.aspx?NID=911 1/20/2016 Town of Yarmouth, MA - Official Website - 2014 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Page 2 of 3 Letters of Map Change: in situations where a property owner thinks their property was inadvertently mapped in a SFHA, FEMA provides a process for the public to request a change in the flood zone designation for the property. This request is known as a Letter of Map Change (LOMC), Additional information can be obtained at http://www.f ma,gov/fker-mao-amendment- letter-map-revisign-based-fill-process. This process requires an Elevation Certificate to identify site specific information about your property. An Elevation Certificate may also be beneficial in determining your flood insurance rate. Flood Insurance Relief. President Obama signed into law the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability (HFIA) Act on March 21, 2014. This law amends the Biggert Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and delays or softens the implementation of some of the flood insurance rate hikes required by Biggert Waters. Although Biggert Waters was originally put into place to improve the financial stability of the National Flood Insurance Program, which was running in a deficit after multiple major storm events, it had the unintended financial consequence of excessively high flood insurance rates for many properties. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act provides for relief for some properties as well as retaining "grandfathering° benefits, Information on the implementation of the HFIA can be found at http_ ((www—.-PgMa.gov national-flood-insurance-program/flood-Insurance-reform . YARMOUTH GIS MAP BASED ON NEW FIRM MAPS Enti,,Le Town FEMA MAPS EFFECTIVE 7ULY 16, 2014 Town of Yarmouth 10ri -,X 05L73 05591 0�C5 73 0569 i f 57�1 05771 05783 05793 05833 f U—All O��F1 Q5�4J Qsgi� 07£i2J SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION July 21 20x4 Letter to Rrlilding Department implementation of Homeowner Fiorsd Insurance Afforda)iity LHF1A) Act Homer1wner ;'load I��urance AfforOPNI ity (HFIA) Act Fact Sheet R- :rd of S^Irefrm in Lgte.rc to �`9islcalor� —t 9, 20 i3 Fart'ors Inn actinc_Flood insur:_ncP RatpS CORRESPONDENCE FROM FEMA ! ?It r from F.E;-j;A hriy i� Zkl�4 LFf'-tr from FEMA dated Jai 16 ?01- L9i r from Fjlj dated Der. 2, 2013 Lac 3 from FEh14 dated nce 28. 2013 letter fi-orn FEMA tLted lulu 201 LP!!-r frr,nn j=EM,A rik,t, �Aay 20:t3 t e&r From s=EMA daig�f F:th R, 2013 L=t-t.:- r from(:-qgd iary � 2012 Lett from FI r A dute;d 1!rIX, 7.1a_?,Oli L��� from F�f�IA_�d�rJ J�F-. 10, 2011. Letter from FFMA d�itgri Ma+r 3�20I1 e�tel "ram FEMA.d led MarrI1.2.3,._?01? RELATED LINKS Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ht :l/tN^i.fema.g v/hazard/manliirm.5htm http://www.yarmouth.ma.us/index.aspx?NID=911 1 /20/2016 Town of Yarmouth, MA - Official Website - 2014 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Page 3 of 3 FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas htto://www.fema. ov natinnal-flood-itis±_rance,- o'Lnm-1 S (, inl- Innd=ha�-rd-a�H,.. FEMA Frequently asked questions hltnJ/±:wl:.f ?r�::.nov/f_-i,, e,-a�kg:-aue`;tions Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) & Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) i,ttsUi iwww..Jerna. ov letter- m o-amendment-letter-magi• rev isirn-h,sed-fill pra��«, Biggert Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act 2012 Up:(.'www.feroa.qovin-i lonal-floors-insvranr-�-�±roara og�i-i,�suranc -reform-il-r- 12 Protecting Coastal Property from Major Storm Damage htto:llbu�zar_=l:tYv c, g/ci�wnl z�dep-200t? _hcbrn-fi arnd Massachusetts Building Code 780 CMR 120.G — Flood Resistant Construction and Construction in coastal Dunes: htrp_[Lwww.m3ss ov �ppf��cs/das//+h-mars-bass ,4�pp�ndix-lZO-a.vdf Official NFIP website: htta://www.floodsmart.4o�,,/fgo_ dsmary Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Flood Hazard Management Program (FHMP): tMp://ww ._masC:ynvJ_ op�S��9"L�3`'fn�ar�i:J�t „� rd n l ig�ti��[fIG, �1 ir.=nir±nt 'It -l7 V YZc,W- . » 1148 .2ou'c 2" • St .4h Yarrnou.:t: `as; _::!�u:. ;t� : 0 +:4-.'.qB'! • (r�i�) t�f.') 3 3-223'. ' �- - . ; ? : i Nr.. ,..��:d t:; C. http://www.yarmouth.ma.usfindex.aspx?NID=911 1/20/2016 January 18, 2016 Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy and Kenney 101 Merrimac St. Boston, MA 02114 RE: Review of the Order of Conditions, SE 83-2048 by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission for 188 Berry Ave., Yarmouth, MA. On behalf of your client, Janet and Michael Durkin, Call of the Wild Consulting has reviewed the Notice oflntent and Order of Conditions for the proposed project at 188 Berry Ave. and would like to offer the following comments. Under the Town of Yarmouth's Wetlands Protection Bye-law, Chapter 143, and Wetlands Protection Regulations Under the Town of Yarmouth's Wetlands Protection By-law, Chapter 143, Section 2, (A) states "No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter any bank, freshwater wetland, beach, dune, flat, marsh, bog, or swamp, or estuary, creek, river, stream, pond, lake, or the ocean, or land under or bordering on said waters or wetlands, or any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, or construct any causeway, bridge, marina, wharf, dock or other similar structure in, on, over or within 100 feet of any of the aforesaid, other than in the course of maintaining, repairing, or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging, an existing and lawfully, meaning fulfilling the requirements of all applicable permits." The proposed project at 188 Berry Ave. submits a substantial expansion of the foot print of the existing structure which lies within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage as defined under The Town of Yarmouth's Wetlands Regulations 2.10, (2). In the Order of Conditions under Special Conditions — Page 10 a, # 8 states "No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the limit of work line." The entire project is within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, a defined Resource Area, and abuts the top of the Coastal Bank. Under the Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations 2.10, (1) the Preamble states "Land subject to coastal storm flowage are areas subject to coastal flooding during moderate and severe weather conditions. Projects that occur within these areas are likely to have adverse impacts on the following interests... (g) Wildlife and (h) Wildlife Habitat." An abutter to the project site, Janet Durkin, has observed mallards, (Anal platyrhynchos) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) utilizing the Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Flooding for feeding and overwintering roosting habitat for approximately 5 years. Roosting habitat is an essential area used for resting and preening during high tides. The project site is likely to be adjacent to a new shore feeding area for these species. Waterfowl on Coastal Bank at 188 Berry Ave Evidence in the form of photographs, such as the one above, were asked to be submitted as part of the record and for the Commission's consideration at the public hearing. The request was denied by the Chairman. The Conservation Commission failed to consider Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat interests protected under the Yarmouth Wetlands Bylaw and the Wetlands Protection Regulations in its deliberation and subsequent Order of Conditions. It should be noted that the submitted plan for the proposed project was not prepared by a Massachusetts Professional Registered Engineer. The Velocity Zone, VE (EL 13) is not accurately delineated and the AE (EL 12) zone is not shown at all on the plan. In addition, under General Notes on the plan, one of the notes states: "The septic system shown on this plan is an approximate location, contractor to verify location of existing system components and septic line and relocate as needed to comply with Board of 2 Health Regulations." The proposed addition and living space above the proposed garage will increase the amount of "livable living space" and trigger an increase in leaching capacity within Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. This work is not shown on the plan. For the reasons described above the proposed project should be denied. Sincerely, and Boretos-, Senior Wetland Biologist Call of the Wild Consulting and Environmental Services 592 East Sangerville Rd. Sangerville, ME 04479 REQUEST FOR SUPERSEDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS RE: DEP File# SE83-2048 LOCUS: 188 BERRY AVENUE West Yarmouth, Massachusetts 02673 ARGUMENT Pursuant to MGL c 131 § 40, Paragraph 19, and 310 CMR 10.07(a), The Abutters, Janet and Michael, Trustees of the Durkin Trust, Owners of the abutting property at 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, West Yarmouth, Massachusetts, ("Mr. and Mrs. Durkin") request that The Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") issue a Superseding Order Of Conditions, annulling and replacing the Order of Conditions dated 1/15/16 ("1/15/16 Order") issued by The Yarmouth Conservation Commission ("Yarmouth Commission"), concerning the proposed work at 188 Berry Avenue ("Subject Property"). Mr. and Mrs. Durkin respectfully request that upon conducting a de novo review, the DEP issue a superseding Order disapproving the work proposed in the Notice of Intent, dated 12/21/15, ("NOI") fled with the Yarmouth Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Durkin make this request because the 1/15/16 Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c 131 § 40) and is inconsistent with the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00). Mr. and Mrs. Durkin clearly and concisely object to the l/15/16 Order for the following reasons: The Subject Property is an area subject to protection under 131 §40 as set forth in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) and (d) because the land contains a coastal bank bordering on an estuary (Lewis Bay) and is land subject to coastal storm flowage ("LSCSF"). The most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency("FEMA") map, Panel 588, Barnstable County, dated 7/16/14, (full size and detail section enclosed) show the subject property has both VE(EL13) and AE(EL11) zones, and that the "limit of moderate wave action" area, at zone AE12, runs across the subject property just in front of the existing house structure. Because the NOI proposes to substantially enlarge the existing structure by 643 square feet (NOI site plan) as well as adding a new swimming pool and deck, new patios, and a new four car garage with living space and new bathrooms above the garage, totaling 2,904 square feet of new structures, and an enlarged septic system leaching into the ground, the applicant was required to file a NOI demonstrating to the Yarmouth Commission that the proposed work " will contribute to the protection of the interests identified in MGL c 131 §40 by complying with the general performance standards established by 310 CMR 10.00 for that area". 310 CMR 10.30 contains performance standards for coastal banks. 310 CMRI0.00 does not contain performance standards for LSCSF. Pursuant to 310 CMR l 0.30, the Yarmouth Commission was required to make a written determination that the coastal bank was either, or both, "significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it supplies sediment to coastal beaches... the ability of the coastal bank to erode in response to wave action is critical to protection of that interest(s)" and/or make a determination that the "coastal bank is significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it is a vertical buffer to storm waters, the stability of the bank, i.e., the natural resistance of the bank to erosion caused by wind, and rain runoff, is critical to the protection of that interest(s)". Pa lk WSW bavAt iS Y�0+ a n d e-al _ �evftopoct PVI)Plev 1 tJUI-G- P''C v�,oU01 �t) OLaerC4 9 a �-A. cr,?r. efo c{ v� F ci� r- C`.1 S�J. c of z. 1 f, rt". n V-F e c �A-,* ✓' + �va� o4 tt/xx�vc .a'a ►r� ` Qlow' r o �^'E V&4 Sa (w e I _ QIuS The Yarmouth Commission failedlo comply with 310 CMR 10.30, by failing to m.ouvIce make the required determinations, despite the FEMA map showing moderate wave action coming over the top of the identified coastal bank, and spreading throughout the LSCSF area. Absent specific performance requirements, 310 CMR 10.21 requires, for LSCSF, that the proposed work "protect these characteristics and resources to the maximum extent permissible under MGL c 131 § 40" and that the Yarmouth Commission "issue specific measures and requirements for each proposed project that will ensure the project is designed and carried out consistent with the required level of protection". The Yarmouth Commission's 1/15/16 Order fails to comply with 310 CMR 10.21. Furthermore, 310 CMR 10.30(4) prohibits work and structures within 100 feet of the top of a coastal bank that have " an adverse effect due to wave action on the movement of sediment from the coastal bank to coastal beaches or land subject to tidal action". The proposed project includes expanded structures, patios, a pool and pool deck, a pool pump shed, a four car garage, and new leaching fields, all in the LSCSF, and all within 100 feet of the top of the coastal bank. By altering the LSCSF, the ability of the LSCSF to absorb water is compromised, and the ability of movement of sediment toward the coastal beach is compromised. The NOI did not include an engineer's report, by a registered professional engineer, with storm water flowage/ocean hydrology experience, to inform the Yarmouth Commission as to the consequences of the proposed work, and whether the work would have an adverse effect on the absorption of storm water and the movement of sediment. The Yarmouth Commission violated 310 CMR 10.30(4) when it issued the l/15116 Order, without adequate credible expert information concerning the project's impact on the protection of the interests identified in MGL c 131 § 40 and 310 CMR 10.00, 2. MGL c 131 § 40 prohibits work on a coastal bank, or on LSCSF, except when the Sic s �, w work is "maintaining, repairing or replacing, but not substantially changing or Bwf4.e v Ic "t "'"t enlarging any existing lawfully located structure..." The NOI describes work r�,O+ nofi Pvchibli uvr e e v U1 P 0, �� A 114'e which adds 643 square feet to the existing house. This is not permitted by MGL c by { 1AA PQ C5( U w e'P. �I gy lows have S0/91; (1 131 § 40. The NOI describes a new Olympic pool and new four car garage and S t. hat k- CO- ( Q is © VA 5,dg o t -�,,,� new leaching areas, all within the LSCSF, and all within 100 feet of the top of the c t(poud �c, e` coastal bank ("Buffer Zone" per 310 CAM 10.02(b), subject to protection by 131 1 �4�q..�a v� Coy`^ fVrSa-k c( § 40). The proposed work is prohibited by MGL c 131 §40. The Yarmouth Wovk fJ,4 SQIbuc� St e(/\ d.eve(oped eahl"e Commission, by issuing the 1115116 Order, allowing the project to proceed, floe for-t��, - violated MGL c 131 § 40. 3. MGL c 131 § 40 requires the NOI be served on abutters. It is axiomatic that the notice to abutters be reasonably calculated to inform the abutters of the potential adverse impacts of the project on the interests protected by MGL c 131 §40. In this case, the NOI made no mention of the 7/16/14 FEMA map showing the subject property and the abutter's property, was all LSCSF during 100 year storms, or that the limit of moderate wave action fell in the proposed work area and within the Buffer Zone, nor did the NOI comply with DEP Wetlands Program Policy 92-1 concerning the required specificity when identifying a coastal bank, nor did the NOI even mention the wild water fowl feeding, over wintering and roosting habitat on the coastal bank, the top of which is under the existing front 4 patio of the house. Policy 92-1 requires identification of the "toe" of the coastal bank, the identification of which of the seven established DEP "figures" of coastal banks best matches the subject property, and submission of plan cross sections showing the coastal bank at each meaningful elevation. This was not done and the required information was not available to the Yarmouth Commission before it voted to approve the project. Likewise, even though protection of "wild life habitat" is an express interest under MGL c 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.01(2), the Yarmouth Commission elected to reject the abutter's offer that Mrs. Durkin testify and show photographs of the roosting overwintering water fowl living on the coastal bank. The Yarmouth Commission violated MGL c 131 §40 by acting without considering or addressing the existence of roosting wild water fowl, the failure to comply with DEP Policy 92-1, resulting in the incomplete and inaccurate location of the coastal bank and inadequate notice to abutters, and by acting without considering or addressing the PEMA map showing moderate wave action and storm water flowage in the project area. 4. MGL c 131 §40 and 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) require, prior to filing a NOI, an applicant shall apply for "all permits, variances and approvals required by local by-law with respect to the proposed activity" that are "feasible to obtain". See Conservation Commission of Brockton v Department of Environmental Protection, 81 Mass App Ct 601, 608(2012). 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) provides that approvals from local authorities of permits required for work on flood plains and wetlands are among the required permits to be obtained prior to filing for a NOI with the Conservation Commission. The Yarmouth Zoning By -Law, at 403.1 addresses building in FIood Zones A and V, which are the zones applicable to the subject property. At the 1/7/16 hearing, the applicant admitted a permit from the Yarmouth Board of Health would need to be obtained, concerning the expansion of the existing septic system and leaching fields. The NOI did not contain any engineering plans explaining how septic pipes and leaching fields would perform when the subject property was underwater during a 100 year storm. The Durkins submit the Yarmouth Conservation Commission violated 310 CMR 10.05(4)(e) and MGL c 131 §40 when it voted on 1/7/16, and issued on 1/15/16 the Order of Conditions, without first requiring the applicant to obtain a Board of Health septic permit for the subject property. The Durkins further submit that the subject property should be required to comply with 310 CMR 15.00 (The State Environmental Code Regulating Septic Systems); and Policy BRP/DWM/PEP- P995 (Nitrogen Loading Limitations -System Upgrades In Sensitive Areas) (310 CMR 15.214) given the existing nitrogen overloading of Lewis Bay, reflected by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project report on Lewis Bay, copy enclosed. REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, Mr. and Mrs. Durkin, respectfully request that the DEP issue a Superseding Order of Conditions annulling the 1/15116 Order of Conditions, and rejecting the proposed project described in the NOT. Respectfully submitted, /S/ Douglas A. Robertson BBO #552315 Attorney For Michael and Janet Durkin, Trustees of The Durkin Trust, Owners of 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, An Aggrieved Abutter Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 227-3240 dobertson@mmmk.com Dated: January 25, 2016 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: Request for Departmental Action Fee SE83-90AS Provided by DEP Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information 1. Location of Project 188 Berry Avenue West Yarmouth 02673 a. Street Address b. Cityrrown, Zip 13483 5-12 0 c. Check number d. Fee amount Important: 2 Person or a making request if appropriate, name the citizen rou 's representative): When filling p g (g p out forms on —Wehael and 4ane�` D____,- , - the computer, Name use only the 15 Lewis Bay Boulevard tab key to Mailing Address move your wP G t Yarmouth MA 02673 cursor - do Cityrrown State Zip Code not use the return key. Phone Number Fax Number (if applicable) �► 3. Applicant (as shown on Determination of Applicability (Form 2), Order of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4B), Order of Conditions (Form 5), Restoration Order of Conditions (Form 5A), or Notice of Non -Significance (Form 6)): Ali and Elaine Biadeliazari Name 18 Juniper Road Mailing Address Medway MA 02053 Cdy/Town State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number (if applicable) 4. DEP File Number: _:.qF.83-204 8 B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for (check one): ® Superseding Order of Conditions - Fee: $120.00 (single family house projects) or $245 (all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability - Fee: $120 ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation - Fee: $120 Send this form and check or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 wetfee.doc • rev 12/16/14 Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form • Pape 1 of -a ccl e ru r3 0146 93 go B °..18 p Cert W Fee $0.00 p Relum Recelpf Fee d C3 (EndorsertrentRequired)a.ii� C7tr r-9 Toted Postage &.Fee: $ 6 f ?c mPSt:C itf[ d only, Na ins rr-anca L: rsrrrsrnreWsFwww�r fvc cl,v�eY craft rra tilt+ v F,€ �.�rr IwLb4oc D Postage 0 Cerdeed Fee C7 _ C7 (Endorsament�Rarylred) a' (Edorserrren4 ftq Irr. r-a Total Postage & Fees $7. N nt A C3 freef7ipEWo.;''j j { or Po Box w 1 hIE11 17,arne.'tic hllail,O"}�,r; llAAIL.. No Insul far deliv�ry`lnformetiq �i�irour-6 r = r \' ',CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT '''10 On"Y'-NL) i?$tIr<i fIGE" C"'V"'id4�t! t �r iSLii V'C ry iflformatt Dr YI Eil .3�£ itR Iib T4i.vi Nr1�,11 r I t[*? ,ru e t+ i of m i� LAK ru 7-7 ` n` D P.I.M. � `j ) ) m CerGfiedFee F S� {r. O (End oraei:antRR rem Er 1'Endorsemen# RegWred) E 3. Total Postage & Few pY-l( i � 1 ` r- mm-X-t;L1 r %IL..11 Ali[ 1#...Li {C�UrtF��tr. i4f;�i! "fit FM Ftxreli,veru�r fo 7n'a — Ar O p Cenl#ied Fee a p Retum Reoe" Fee p (Endorsement RaquReM 1:3 (Eoreemeftt Requlredi rr r q Total Postage & Fees $ V- F. o C7 Q r o PO Box Ab. ar Ul 18 01 4X7. i •+i�25 �D1���ri Posbnark �! 0146 18 Pam* U-S. Pqslaf rVice -CER-rIFI'ED,TIAA,IL , f?ECEIPT (DOme-slic Miit Only:-?Vo InsuranrP C-OvrfJO,-,,Ptovldvdp ru *UU M;. 7wrgm 121 r =I C3 M C3 C3 Certified Fee 1= Pao RWF (End=M eWk&de) 10 HOW* M POWJDW DWImy FLe Ir (Endomment Req • r-R TOW POSIWe & Fees st; ��r '�'! ul I a, 0 Durkin v Conservation Commission Febraury 91h, 2016 Prepared by Kelly Grant, Conservation Administrator Response to The Claim: 1. The following plan was submitted: Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA 188 Berry Avenue. Prepared for Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari. Dated December 21, 2015. Prepared by Demarest Land Surveying. Stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project, namely the 'coastal bank' and 'land subject to coastal storm flowage' (LSCSF) (referred to as the flood zone on the plan). The plans, along with the application narrative, provide information necessary to describe the proposed activity and its effect on the environment. 2. The plan submitted was prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor, namely John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. 3. The plan shows and labels all relevant "Resource Areas" in proximity to the project. As per 1.09(2)(d) "Labels shall reference these areas as they appear in Part 2 and Part 3 of these regulations." On the plan the 'coastal bank' and LSCSF are labeled. On the Plan LSCSF is referred to as the 'flood zone' but cross referenced as LSCSF in the accompanying narrative. 4. LSCSF is delineated and referred to on the plan as the flood zone, with reference made to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) zones AE (EL11) and VE (EL13). S. Yes. Lewis Bay is a Major Estuary so the performance standards apply to an area within 300ft of the estuary which for the purposes of this project, coincides with the FEMA flood zones marked on the plan. 6. Changes to the existing septic tank would be subject to approval by the Board of Health and subject to approval of any revised plans by the Conservation Commission. 7. (a) The plan submitted by the applicant was prepared by Demarest Land Surveying and stamped and dated by John Z. Demarest, Jr. Professional Land Surveyor. -This is deemed- se#+c+e� --prepef+y-ai°u ^�a�-€vakktte4be ppotentiQl-of-real-effec-tsAafthe proposed prajecy The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the building department that includes the review of professional engineering plans. The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated on the plan. (b) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to (� the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). (c) The most recent FEMA flood zones are delineated and labelled on the plan. The flood zone is not specifically labelled as LSCSF on the plan but the accompanying narrative clearly refers to the LSCSF as being the FEMA zones VE(EL13) and AE(EL11). There is no requirement for the resource areas to be shown on abutting properties. The 'limit of moderate wave action' as depicted on FEMA Panel Map #588, dated 7/16/14 does not cross the applicant's property, but instead ends approximately at the boundary of the abutting property to the west. The white line depicted on the FEMA map across the applicant's property is the boundary dividing the two different flood zones AE and VE. (d) The only omission from the NOI plan was the labelling of the flood zone as LSCSF and this was mitigated by the cross referencing of this term in the narrative and the general understanding that the flood zone and LSCSF in this instance as one and the same. (e) There is no expansion of the septic system proposed. Changes are limited to the relocation of the septic line to allow for the proposed pool. Any changes to the septic line or tank will require Board of Health review and approval. Any further changes to the septic system will required a revised plan, review and approval of the Conservation Commission. 8. As per the applicant's narrative within the Notice of Intent (NOI), the top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. Transects with slope measurement are shown on the site plan in four locations. Probable changes in the grading of the property historically means location of the exact coastal bank riS somewhat 1 subjective. The Commission chose to accept the calculations of the applicant's representative as valid given the provision, as per Wetlands Protection Policy 92-1, of • a delineation of the coastal bank, • mapped on a plan to a scale not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, • with a slope profile represented by transects with the linear distance and the location of this linear distance. The Commission members attended the site to confirm they were satisfied with the delineations made by the applicant's representative. The Commission accepted that based on its review of the site, and the information provided in the plan, that a cross section of the slope profile and a reference to the representative diagram from policy 92.1 were not required for their deliberations. As per Policy 92-1, the final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority, in this case, the Conservation Commission. The applicant's representative clarified that coastal bank transect measurements were carried out in a conservative manner. Had the toe of the bank been used for transects in this instance the measurements would have yielded an artificially shallow transect which would have shown no coastal bank present and hence no consideration of this resource area would be required. The representative asserted that profiles were traditionally used on site plans but are largely considered to be redundant and the transects are included on the plan as a recognized alternative. 9. An Olympic sized pool is generally considered to be 50 meters (146 ft) in length. The proposed pool is 24' by 20'. Regardless, minor structures may be allowed within 50 ft of a resource area based on the Commissions review of the proposed project. The applicant proposes as mitigation of the 1692 square foot increase of hardscape, to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass mix, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. Given that the property is already developed, that the proposed addition will not extend any closer to the resource area, and the extent of the proposed mitigation, the Commission considered there to be a net benefit to the resource area should the project proceed. 10. Regulation 143-2 A. states that: No person shall remove, fill, dredge or alter ......... any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage or flooding, ........ without first filing written notices of his intention to remove, fill, dredge, alter or construct by sending a separate letter, by certified mail, to the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and without receiving and complying with an order of conditions and provided that all appeal periods have lapsed. It is not prohibited to alter land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Commission, in their deliberations, consider the performance standards set out in the Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations. 11. The commission received photographs of the property for the abutter's representative and heard the representative's comments as relates to the presence of waterfowl and considered that wild water fowl are likely to utilize the nearshore area. Given the existing nearshore vegetative buffer and the proposed expansion to this vegetative buffer which will provide additional wild waterfowl habitat, the Commission deemed the impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat to be a net benefit. The Commission did not deny any request by the abutter to submit V photographs as asserted by Diane Boretos in her letter attached to the Claim. Ms. Boretos was not present at the meeting as far as we are aware. The Commission Chairman asked for any additional comments from the public before proceeding with a motion. 12. The entire property is considered to be LSCSF as per the narrative .in the NOI and the delineations on the site plan. The 5600 square feet stated in the NOI refers to the "Size of Proposed Alteration" (including total dwelling, patio, pool area and garage) as per the section heading of the NOL 13. The Commission reviewed the application and visited the site to assess the application against the Performance Standards for LSCSF (Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations 2.10(3)). The proposed activity was deemed to be in compliance with the Performance Standards. As stated previously, the Commission concluded the project would not disrupt and destroy the existing wild waterfowl habitat along the seaward land on the subject property. The Order of Conditions issued by the Commission was conditioned to minimize impact on the resource areas, including the following conditions: A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in - perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on- going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. ONE or TWO FAMILY — BUILDING PERMIT APPLICA TION REGULA TOR YAPPRO VALS NOTICE Address of Proposed Work: 15tny u AK, i`j �')c,�V,,,,j� , (11 Scope of Proposed Work: edi,T,, -, D F L r ✓' 0-1 A,, y .3 rA-✓ Date: I L2, 2, fl' Based on the scope of work described above, the applicant is required to obtain approval sign -offs from the following departments as checked -off below: INITIALS V Health Dept. -- 508-398-2231 ext. 1241 Conservation Comm.-- 508-398-2231 ext. 1288 Water Dept.-- 99 Buck Island Rd. phone no. 508-771-7921 Old Kings Hwy. Hist, Comm.-- 508-398-2231 ext.1292 Engineering Dept.-- 508-398-2231 ext. 1250 Fire Dept. —Kevin Huck/James Armstrong, 96 Old Main St. SY Note: Please call Fire Department for an appointment. 508-398-2212 Other Appropriate plans and/or application shall be provided to each of the departments checked -off above. Each of these regulatory authorities has their own requirements outside the jurisdiction of the Building Department. All applicable approvals shall be obtained prior to submitting a building permit application to the Building Dept. Thank you for cooperation. Receipt Acknowledgement: Applicant's Signature Rev. Dec. 2015 Date Town of Yarmouth Conservation Commission Building Permit Sign -off Application TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT: Building Site Location: j' �� r v �� 4V e _ Map # Lot(s) # 5 2 . Property Owner: A I i g h c/ E141 it e glacCe -Ig Z a Vi Applicant: C�'j v ve Applicant Address: /(( J u�,' I Pe v c ez Gi n1o,4 w o y P2 A 020�_3 Telephone: 78 % % Z 16 00 9 Proposed Project Description: r Date Filed Z -218. Plans: Her),, c a L a t-7 o/ i 6/i IVes � yr , ,m e u *-t. W 9 y P, y KII Dec .e ,v? 6e r 2 i, Za i e ,V' Ps -i- L-� �'l TO BE FILLED OUT BY CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATOR: �y i r ;7 Do You Have A Valid Permit From The Conservation Commission For The Proposed Project? yes . Comments from Conservation 'scion: Approved Conditionally Approved Rejected All work related debris shall be taken o si a or disposed in a legal upland location At the end of each day, the area shall be clean and no debris shall be in the Resource Area Refer to: SE83- 2 O q a . or DOA permit Conservation Commission Sign -off Signature: Date: //2Z/ZD16. ' Grant, Kelly From: Grant, Kelly Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:10 PM To: 'Douglas A. Robertson' Subject: RE: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Sure. Do you have an email or mailing address for Janet? Thanks Kelly From: Douglas A. Robertson [mailto:DRobertson@mmmk.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:04 PM To: Grant, Kelly Subject: RE: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Yes. Please send her a copy as well. Please also email me the minutes of the meeting when they are ready. Thanks. Douglas A. Robertson; Esq. Martin; Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114-4716 Phone 617-227-3240 ext. 315 Cell 617-513-8511 Fax 617-227-3346 E-mail drobertson@mmmk.com Webpage Profile For Attorney Client Communications --This Email is Privileged and Confidential ---Do Not Print, Copy or Forward Wit, -but Express Permission of Doug Robertson I From: Grant, Kelly [mailto:KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:03 PM To: Douglas A. Robertson <DRobertson@mmmk.com> Subject: RE: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Hi Doug, I tried to return a call to Janet Durkins to let her know OoC has been issued and to ask if she also wo/Idike a copy. I was unable to reach her. As her representative will you advise her of this? Thanks Kelly From: Grant, Kelly Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:47 PM To: 'Douglas A. Robertson' Subject: RE: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Hi Doug Here is the Order of Conditions for 188 Berry Ave. Thanks Kelly Grant Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth 508-398-2231 Ext 1288 kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us f From: Douglas A. Robertson [mailto:DRobertsonCammmk.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:48 AM To: Grant, Kelly Subject: Re: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Kelly: If the Ooc is ready, please email me a copy. Thanks, Doug Doug Robertson Martin,Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac St Boston, MA 02114 W: 1-617-227-3240 F: 1-617-227-3346 C: 1-617-513-8511 DRobertson@mmmk.com On Jan 14, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us> wrote: Hi Doug, The DEP file number has been issued today so I should have the Order of Conditions issued this afternoon. I will scan and email you a copy. I am attaching the audio file - it is a large file so hopefully will get to you OK. Regards Kelly Grant Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth 508-398-2231 Ext 1288 kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us From: Douglas A. Robertson [mailto:DRobertson@mmmk.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:13 AM To: Grant, Kelly Subject: Re: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 2 Hi Kelly: When you can, please email the list of the current Con Com board members; please also email me the list of standard conditions that the board read off during the hearing, after voting to approve the redevelopment. Thanks, Doug Doug Robertson Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac St Boston, MA 02114 W: 1-617-227-3240 F: 1-617-227-3346 C: 1-617-513-8511 DRobertson@mmmk.com On Jan 12, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us> wrote: I will look at getting the audio. Another point which I have just noticed is that we still haven't received the file number from the DEP so I am not able to issue the order until I receive it. I will keep you updated. Regards Kelly From: Douglas A. Robertson [mailto:DRobertson@mmmk.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:10 PM To: Grant, Kelly Subject: RE: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Kelly: Thanks for your email and your response. Scanning and sending the OoC by email would be great. If you can, I want the audiotape of the 188 Berry ave portion of the evening hearing, so I can have it transcribed and available to the appellate authorities. I understand the minutes may take longer, as they need approval. Doug Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114-4716 Phone 617-227-3240 ext. 315 Cell 617-513-8511 Fax 617-227-3346 E-mail drobertson(a-)mmmk.com Webpage Profile For Attorney Client Communications --This Email is Privileged and Confidential ---Do Not Print, Copy or Forward Without Express Permission of Doug Robertson From: Grant, Kelly [mailto:KGrant@varmouth.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:03 PM To: Douglas A. Robertson <DRobertson@mmmk.com> Subject: RE: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Hi Doug, I have received your request. I am working on these items at the moment and will forward a copy to you as soon as they are completed. If you prefer I can scan and email a copy of the OoC so you receive it quickly. The minutes of meeting need to be approved at the next meeting so I will need to check what I am able to send you in the short term, given your time constraints. I plan on having the OoC issued in the next 2 days. The appeals period (10 business days for State regulations and 21 calendar days for TOY regulations) begins once I have issued the Order of Conditions. Thanks Kelly Grant Conservation Administrator Town of Yarmouth 508-398-2231 Ext 1288 kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us From: Douglas A. Robertson [mailto:DRobertson0a>mmmk.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:56 PM To: Grant, Kelly Subject: 188 Berry ave NOI presented 1/7/16 Hi Ms. Grant: I represent abutters Michael and Janet Durkin. I request the Order of Conditions, the minutes of the 1/7/16 meeting concerning this matter, and a copy of the audiotape made of the matter. I agree to pay all costs associated with this request. Please confirm receipt of this request, and let me know if you need prepayment and/or another form of the request. Doug Douglas A. Robertson, Esq. Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy & Kenney 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114-4716 Phone 617-227-3240 ext. 315 Cel1617-513-8511 Fax 617-227-3346 E-mail drobertson(c�mmmk.com Weboage Profile For Attorney Client Communications --This Email is Privileged and Confidential ---Do Not Print, Copy or Forward Without Express Permission of Doug Robertson <ConCommMinutes 1.7.16.mp3> i Grant, Kelly From: SERO_NOI@MassMail.state.ma.us Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:53 AM To: bernadette.deblander@state.ma.us; Ihamlyn@capecodwetlands.com Cc: sero_noi@state.ma. us; Grant, Kelly; sero_noi@state.ma.us Subject: MassDEP NOI File Number COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 20 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LAKEVILLE, MA 02347 508-946-2700 Date: 01/14/2016 Municipality YARMOUTH RE: NOTIFICATION OF WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT FILE NUMBER The Department of Environmental Protection has received a Notice of Intent filed in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, §40): Applicant ALI R. & ELAINE R. BIGDELIAZARI Address 18 JUNIPER ROAD,MEDWAY MA 0205 Locus -�Y AEU- * ' YARMOUTH MA This project has been assigned the follow ISSUANCE OF A FILE NUMBER IND] APPROVAL OF APPLICATION Although a file # is being issued, please r Regards, for MassDEP, (508)-946-2815 Bernadette.DeBlander(cr),state.ma.us r Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Ll Bureau of Resource Protection - WetlandsWPA Form 5 - Order of ConditionsMassachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143City/Town A. General Information a. First Name Important: When filling out forms on c. Organizationthe 18 Juniper Road computer, d. Mailing Address use only the tab key to Medway move your e. City/Town cursor - do not use the 4. Property Owner (if different from applicant): return key. a. First Name c.Organization d. Mailing Address e. City/Town 5. Project Location: 188 Berry Ave a. Street Address 16 c. Assessors Map/Plat Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Providedby MassDEP: or-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Tra nsaction # Yarmouth Please note: Yarmouth thisform has 1. From: been modified Conservation Commission with added 2. This issuance is for space to a. ®Order of Conditions b. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions accommodate (check one): the Registry of Deeds 3. To: Applicant: Requirements Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari b. Last Name MA f. State b. Last Name f. State Yarmouth b. City/Town 52 d. Parcel/Lot Number 41 d38m28s 70d 14m45s d. Latitude e. Longitude Page 1 of 12 d. Mailing Address e. City/Town 5. Project Location: 188 Berry Ave a. Street Address 16 c. Assessors Map/Plat Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Providedby MassDEP: or-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Tra nsaction # Yarmouth Please note: Yarmouth thisform has 1. From: been modified Conservation Commission with added 2. This issuance is for space to a. ®Order of Conditions b. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions accommodate (check one): the Registry of Deeds 3. To: Applicant: Requirements Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari b. Last Name MA f. State b. Last Name f. State Yarmouth b. City/Town 52 d. Parcel/Lot Number 41 d38m28s 70d 14m45s d. Latitude e. Longitude Page 1 of 12 LlMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 A. General Information (cont.) Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for (attach additional information if more than one parcel): Barnstable a. County 28486 b. Certificate Number (if registered land) 345 c. Book d. Page 7. Dates: 12/22/2015 01/07/2016 01/14/2016 a. Date Notice of Intent Filed b. Date Public Hearing Closed c. Date of Issuance 8. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA. 188 Berry Avenue Prepared for Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari Demarest Land Surveying John Demarest Jr b. Prepared By c. Signed and Stamped by December 21, 2015 1 "= 30' d. Final Revision Date e. Scale f. Additional Plan or Document Title g. Date B. Findings 1. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above -referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply d. ❑ Private Water Supply g. ❑ Groundwater Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c. e. ❑ Fisheries f. h. ® Storm Damage Prevention I. ® Prevention of Pollution ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 2 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 r WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a. linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank 5. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland s. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding Cubic Feet Flood Storage 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Cubic Feet Flood Storage g. ❑ Riverfront Area Sq ft within 100 ft Sq ft between 100- 200 ft a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet e. c/y dredged f. c/y dredged a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet a. square feet b. square feet c. cubic feet d. cubic feet e. cubic feet f. cubic feet a. total sq. feet b. total sq. feet c. square feet d. square feet e. square feet g. square feet h. square feet i. square feet f. square feet j. square feet wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/1212014 Page 3 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# \ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 1o. ❑ Designated Port Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below Areas 11. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a. square feet b. square feet c. c/y dredged d. c/y dredged 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches cu yd cu yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes cu yd cu yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment 15. ® Coastal Banks 20 20 a. linear feet b. linear feet 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a. square feet b. square feet 17. ❑ Salt Marshes a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds a. square feet b. square feet c. c/y dredged d. c/y dredged 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a. c/y dredged b. c/y dredged 21. ® Land Subject to 5600 5600 Coastal Storm a. square feet b. square feet Flowage wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/1212014 Page 4 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Ll 0 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 B. Findings (cont.) * #22. If the 22 project is for the purpose of restoring or enhancing a wetland resource area 23. in addition to the square footage that _ has been C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act entered in Section B.5.c (Bvw) or The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. B.ITc (Salt Marsh) above, 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. the additional g y Y amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. Provided by MassDEP: S E83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth Cityrrown ❑ Restoration/Enhancement *: a. square feet of BVw ❑ Stream Crossing(s): a. number of new stream crossings b. square feet of salt marsh b. number of replacement stream crossings 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. The work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. The time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. c. If the work is for a Test Project, this Order of Conditions shall be valid for no more than one year. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. An Order of Conditions for a Test Project may be extended for one additional year only upon written application by the applicant, subject to the provisions of 310 CMR 10.05(11)(0. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 01/14/2019 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 5 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or, "MassDEPI "File Number SE83-2048 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A) to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. wpaform5.doc - rev. 11/12/2014 Page 6 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection :Ll Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: S E83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth Cityrrown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. 19. The work associated with this Order (the "Project') (1) ❑ is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards (2) ® is NOT subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards, then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post -construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: L all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as -built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; wpaform5.doc • rev. 11112/2014 Page 7 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Ll Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) iv. all post -construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans) approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post -construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party (defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement ("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan") and certifying the following: i.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.) the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post -construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi -Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 8 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection LlBureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three (3) consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit (as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): 20. For Test Projects subject to 310 CMR 10.05(11), the applicant shall also implement the monitoring plan and the restoration plan submitted with the Notice of Intent. If the conservation commission or Department determines that the Test Project threatens the public health, safety or the environment, the applicant shall implement the removal plan submitted with the Notice of Intent or modify the project as directed by the conservation commission or the Department. wpaform5.doc • rev. 1111212014 Page 9 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection LlBureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth Cityrrown D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No 2. The Yarmouth hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission a. ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2. Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ® that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Yarmouth Wetland By -Law, Chapter 143 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2. Citation The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): See attached text pages, Special Conditions Pages 10A,1013 and 10C of 12 wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/1212014 Page 10 of 12 WPA FORM 5-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10A OF 12 SE83-2048, All and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 1. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for having a copy of the "Order of Conditions" on the job site at all times and shall be responsible for insuring that all persons performing the permitted activity are fully aware of its terms and conditions. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of these "Orders", a fine or both. 2. The Conservation Commission, its agent(s) or assigned(s) shall have the express right of entry upon the job site at all reasonable times for the purposes of establishing compliance with the "Order of Conditions", "By -Laws" and "Regulations". Commission members and the Conservation Administrator may acquire any information, measurements, photographs, observations and/or materials or may require the submittal of any data/information deemed necessary by this Commission for that evaluation. 3. A preconstruction review shall be arranged by the contractor with the Conservation Administrator and shall occur prior to the commencement of any work. 4. Any change in the approved plan(s) shall require the Applicant to file, in writing, a notice of project change with this Commission. The Commission will determine the significance of the change and determine whether administrative approval or an "Amended Order of Conditions" is required. Should the project be changed without permission, or found by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission to be altered in any way from the approved plan(s), all work will immediately cease until the project is reapproved by the Commission. 5. The "Order of Conditions" is valid for three years from the date of issuance unless otherwise specifically noted in the "Orders". Extension Permit requests must be applied for at least 30 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the original Orders". Failure to do so will result in a new "Notice of Intent" filing. 6. Noncompliance with these conditions shall constitute grounds for an Enforcement Order and possible fines. Fines shall not exceed $300.00 per day/per violation. 7. A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (Le straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed -free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. 8. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. 01/15/2016 Page 1 of 3 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10B OF 12 SE83-2048, All and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 9. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. 10. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. 11. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. 12. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of.a Certificate of Compliance. 13. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. 14. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. 15. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. 16. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. 17. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 01/15/2016 Page 2 of 3 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10C OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 18. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 19. A stamped "As Built Plan" shall be certified by the Design Engineer (Massachusetts registered Professional Engineer or land Surveyor) and will certify that this project has been completed in accordance with the "Order of Conditions" before a Certificate of Compliance will be issued. The as -built plan shall indicate the structure location, gradients, distances to the resource areas, and other pertinent information described in the application and approved plans. Any deviation from the approved plan shall be identified. 01/15/2016 Page 3 of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands ,.., WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions #4, from the date of issuance. Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth city, Town l I ; S [10 I t- 1. bate of Issuance —.._.C—._.-.._._ 2. Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested) or hand delivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office, if not filing electronically, and the property owner, if different from applicant. Signatures: by hand delivery on Date F. Appeals M by certified mail, return receipt requested, on Date The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. wDaform5.doc • rev, 11/12,2014 Page 11 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 G. Recording Information Provided by MassDEP: S E83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Yarmouth Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission To: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth Project Location Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County for: Property Owner SE83-2048 MassDEP File Number Book Page and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 12 of 12 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. = ICE Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information 1. Location of Project a. Street Address b. City/Town, Zip c. Check number d. Fee amount 2. Person or party making request (if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): Name Mailing Address City/Town State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number (if applicable) 3. Applicant (as shown on Determination of Applicability (Form 2), Order of Resource Area Delineation (Form 413), Order of Conditions (Form 5), Restoration Order of Conditions (Form 5A), or Notice of Non -Significance (Form 6)): Name Mailing Address City/Town State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number (if applicable) 4. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for (check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions — Fee: $120.00 (single family house projects) or $245 (all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability — Fee: $120 ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation — Fee: $120 wpaform5.doc • rev. 11112/2014 Page 13 of 12 L7 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) DEP File Number: Provided by DEP Send this form and check or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. I Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/about/contacts/). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Ll Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 —Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Please note: this form has been modified with added space to accommodate the Registry of Deeds Requirements Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. tab Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town A. General Information Yarmouth 1. From: Conservation Commission 2. This issuance is for a. ®Order of Conditions b. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions (check one): 3. To: Applicant: Ali and Elaine a. First Name c. Organization 18 Juniper Road d. Mailing Address Medway e. City/Town 4. Property Owner (if different from applicant): a. First Name c. Organization d. Mailing Address e. City/Town 5. Project Location: 188 Berry Ave a. Street Address 16 c. Assessors Map/Plat Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: Bigdeliazari b. Last Name MA f. State b. Last Name f. State Yarmouth b. City/Town 52 d. Parcel/Lot Number 41 d38m28s d. Latitude g. Zip Code 70d14m45s e. Longitude wpaform5.doc - rev. 11/12/2014 Page 1 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Ll Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 t Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town A. General Information (cont.) 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for (attach additional information if more than one parcel): Barnstable a. County b. Certificate Number (if registered land) 28486 345 c. Book d. Page 7. Dates: 12/22/2015 01/07/2016 01/14/2016 a. Date Notice of Intent Filed b. Date Public Hearing Closed c. Date of Issuance 8. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): Plan of Land in West Yarmouth, MA. 188 Berry Avenue Prepared for Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari Demarest Land Surveying John Demarest Jr b. Prepared By c. Signed and Stamped by December 21, 2015 1 "= 30' d. Final Revision Date e. Scale f. Additional Plan or Document Title g. Date B. Findings 1. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above -referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply d. ❑ Private Water Supply g. ❑ Groundwater Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c' e. ❑ Fisheries f. ® Prevention of Pollution ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat h. ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 2 of 12 r Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions (11` Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 B. Findings (cont.) Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. C. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a. linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank 5. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland s. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding Cubic Feet Flood Storage 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Cubic Feet Flood Storage s. ❑ Riverfront Area Sq ft within 100 ft Sq ft between 100- 200 ft a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet a. square feet b. square feet c. square feet d. square feet a. square feet b. square feet c. cubic feet d. cubic feet e. cubic feet f. cubic feet a. total sq. feet b. total sq. feet c. square feet d. square feet e. square feet f. square feet g. square feet h. square feet i. square feet j. square feet vrpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 3 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands SE83-2048 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEPFile # Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction # Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Yarmouth City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 10. ❑ Designated Port Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below Areas 11. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a. square feet b. square feet 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes 15. ® Coastal Banks 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores 17. ❑ Salt Marshes 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish 20. ❑ Fish Runs 21. ® Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below cu yd cu yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment cu yd cu yd a. square feet b. square feet c. nourishment d. nourishment a. square feet a. square feet b.linear feet b. square feet a. square feet b. square feet Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 4 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions pMassachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 #22. If the project is for the purpose of restoring or enhancing a wetland resource area in addition to the square footage that has been entered in Section B.5.c (BVW) or B.17.c (Salt Marsh) above, please enter the additional amount here. B. Findings (cont.) 22. ❑ Restoration/Enhancement *: a. square feet of BVW 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s): a. number of new stream crossings b. square feet of salt marsh Provided by MassDEP SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth city/Town b. number of replacement stream crossings C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. The work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. The time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. c. If the work is for a Test Project, this Order of Conditions shall be valid for no more than one year. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. An Order of Conditions for a Test Project may be extended for one additional year only upon written application by the applicant, subject to the provisions of 310 CMR 10.05(11)(f). 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 01/14/2019 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 5 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: S E83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or, "MassDEP"] "File Number SE83-2048 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A) to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 6 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions i Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. 19. The work associated with this Order (the "Project') (1) ❑ is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards (2) ® is NOT subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards, then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post -construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as -built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; wpaform5.doc - rev. 11/12/2014 Page 7 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Ll Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) iv. all post -construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans) approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post -construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party (defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement ("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan") and certifying the following: i.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.) the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post -construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi -Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k) with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 8 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three (3) consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit (as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): 20. For Test Projects subject to 310 CMR 10.05(11), the applicant shall also implement the monitoring plan and the restoration plan submitted with the Notice of Intent. If the conservation commission or Department determines that the Test Project threatens the public health, safety or the environment, the applicant shall implement the removal plan submitted with the Notice of Intent or modify the project as directed by the conservation commission or the Department. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 9 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 Provided by MassDEP: S E83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No 2. The Yarmouth hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission a. ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw z. tiiavon Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ® that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Yarmouth Wetland By -Law, Chapter 143 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2. Citation 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): See attached text pages, Special Conditions Pages 10A,10B and 10C of 12 wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 10 of 12 WPA FORM 5-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10A OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 1. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for having a copy of the "Order of Conditions" on the job site at all times and shall be responsible for insuring that all persons performing the permitted activity are fully aware of its terms and conditions. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of these "Orders", a fine or both. 2. The Conservation Commission, its agent(s) or assigned(s) shall have the express right of entry upon the job site at all reasonable times for the purposes of establishing compliance with the "Order of Conditions", "By -Laws" and "Regulations". Commission members and the Conservation Administrator may acquire any information, measurements, photographs, observations and/or materials or may require the submittal of any data/information deemed necessary by this Commission for that evaluation. 3. A preconstruction review shall be arranged by the contractor with the Conservation Administrator and shall occur prior to the commencement of any work. 4. Any change in the approved plan(s) shall require the Applicant to file, in writing, a notice of project change with this Commission. The Commission will determine the significance of the change and determine whether administrative approval or an "Amended Order of Conditions" is required. Should the project be changed without permission, or found by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission to be altered in any way from the approved plan(s), all work will immediately cease until the project is reapproved by the Commission. 5. The "Order of Conditions" is valid for three years from the date of issuance unless otherwise specifically noted in the "Orders". Extension Permit requests must be applied for at least 30 calendar days prior to the expiration date of the original Orders". Failure to do so will result in a new "Notice of Intent" filing. 6. Noncompliance with these conditions shall constitute grounds for an Enforcement Order and possible fines. Fines shall not exceed $300.00 per day/per violation. 7. A "work limit" line shall be established with Erosion Controls (i.e straw bales, staked filter fabric, bark mulch, "silt sacks," products made with rice straw, and other weed -free products or approved by the Commission.) Hay bales are not allowed. It is the applicant's responsibility to implement and maintain appropriate and adequate erosion controls measures throughout the construction process. 8. No work of any kind shall occur on the Resource Area side of the work limit line. This line shall be established prior to any construction or work. 01/15/2016 Page 1 of 3 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10B OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 9. Debris, including litter, shall be picked up immediately. Any excess material that is excavated from the job site shall be disposed of at a location approved by the Conservation Administrator or in a covered dumpster. No debris shall be allowed in a Wetland or Waterway. 10. Washing of equipment/tools shall be done OFF -SITE or handled in a manner appropriate by the Conservation Administrator. 11. No equipment shall be refueled, nor shall fuel be stored within 100 feet of a resource area. 12. The driveway shall be constructed of pervious materials such as crushed stone, gravel, seashells, or other similar materials. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 13. Gutters and downspouts directed into adequately sized drywells shall be provided for roof drainage. The Commission may also allow "drip trenches" instead of gutter systems. At no time shall roof run off be directed to a wetland resource area or abutting properties. 14. Grading shall be accomplished so that runoff shall not be directed to the property of others. The project shall not increase runoff, nor cause flooding or storm damage to abutters other property owners or wetland Resource Areas. 15. Any area that is disturbed during construction shall be revegetated immediately or as soon after as the growing season commences, with appropriate native plantings. Permanent stabilization shall be carried out in order to minimize erosion. 16. An 8.5 foot buffer strip of native vegetation shall be planted as per the approved plan, to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The buffer strip of native vegetation shall be left UNDISTURBED. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The applicant must wait until the 2nd growing season (i.e. fall and spring) is complete before the Request for a Certificate of Compliance is submitted. During this time period, the Commission/Conservation Administrator may require additional plantings if it is determined that any specimens are dead or dying and need replacement. 17. No lawn shall exist beyond the single rail fence as shown on the approved plan. This is an on -going condition, in -perpetuity, that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 01/15/2016 Page 2 of 3 WPA FORM S-ORDER OF CONDITIONS SPECIAL CONDITIONS -PAGE 10C OF 12 SE83-2048, Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA 18. Landscape Debris, including leaves, grass clippings, brush, or other shall not be allowed within the wetland resource area. This is an on -going condition that does not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 19. A stamped "As Built Plan" shall be certified by the Design Engineer (Massachusetts registered Professional Engineer or land Surveyor) and will certify that this project has been completed in accordance with the "Order of Conditions" before a Certificate of Compliance will be issued. The as -built plan shall indicate the structure location, gradients, distances to the resource areas, and other pertinent information described in the application and approved plans. Any deviation from the approved plan shall be identified. 01/15/2016 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions #4, from the date of issuance. Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. Provided by MassDEP: SEg3- 2-o4& MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town t I IS/201,, 1. bate of Issuance 2. Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested) or hand delivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office, if not filing electronically, and the property owner, if different from applicant. S ❑ by hand delivery on d by certified mail, return receipt requested, on i 1i5/2oib Date Date F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 11 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection �r Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-law, Chapter 143 G. Recording Information Provided by MassDEP: SE83-2048 MassDEP File # eDEP Transaction # Yarmouth City/Town Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Yarmouth Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission To: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth Project Location Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County for: Property Owner SE83-2048 MassDEP File Number Book and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant wpaform5.doc - rev. 11/12/2014 Page Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information 1. Location of Project a. Street Address b. City/Town, Zip J ♦ DEP File Number: Provided by DEP c. Check number d. Fee amount 2. Person or party making request (if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): Name Mailing Address City/Town Phone Number State Fax Number (if applicable) Zip Code 3. Applicant (as shown on Determination of Applicability (Form 2), Order of Resource Area Delineation (Form 413), Order of Conditions (Form 5), Restoration Order of Conditions (Form 5A), or Notice of Non -Significance (Form 6)): Name Mailing Address City/Town Phone Number 4. DEP File Number: B. Instructions State Fax Number (if applicable) 1. When the Departmental action request is for (check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions — Fee: $120.00 (single family house projects) or $245 (all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability— Fee: $120 ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation — Fee: $120 wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 Page 13 of 12 LMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands ` Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) DEP File Number: Provided by DEP Send this form and check or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see htttp://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/about/contacts/). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. wpaform5.doc • rev. 11/12/2014 YARMOUTH CONSERVATION COMMISSION ADDRESS: 125%Ll APPLICANT: 4 Z 41-'e i DATE OF MEETING: &-111- REPRESENTATIVE (if any): e .v GREEN RECEIPTS: COMPLETE INCOMPLETE (explain) LEGAL AD $$: PAID N ICE OF INTENT ( OI) Opening NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) Continuation SE83- Other: NOT PAID (explain) TYPE OF HEARING REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION (RDA) Opening REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION (RDA) Continuation REQUEST TO AMEND AN ORDER DECISION: Votes: (list last names) NOI RFD/RDA For: Against Approved Neg # _ Bishop 2-l-' Bishop Pos. # Carr Carr Continued Continued Durkin Durkin Hoopes Hoopes Johnston Johnston Russano 5� Russano Gallagher ✓ Gallagher DISCUSSION: (approval conditions, denial reasons, continuation reasons) �— a //j C 7- Z G,w�r 6� r `►§ . t w � r = . � \� 100 ,-� ■ X � Wetlands Program Policy 92-1: Coastal Banks I MassDEP _ The Official Website of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs = Energy and Environmental Affairs A EEA Home > Agencies > MassDEP > Water Resources > Laws & Rules > Wetlands Program Policy 92-1: Coastal Banks Wetlands Program Policy 92-1: Coastal Banks Coastal Banks: Definition and Delineation Criteria for Coastal Bank (DWW Policy 92-1) Issued: March 3, 1992 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to clarify the definition of coastal bank contained in the Wetlands Regulations, 310 CMR 10.00, by providing guidance for identifying 'top of coastal bank'. Regulatory Standards Coastal wetlands are defined in the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c. 131, s.40) as: "any bank, marsh, swamp, meadow, flat or other lowland subject to tidal action or coastal storm flowage". Coastal banks are defined at 310 CMR 10.30(2) as: "the seaward face or side of any elevated landform, other than a coastal dune, which lies at the landward edge of a coastal beach, land subject to tidal action, or other wetland". When these two definitions are read together, coastal banks can be inferred to be associated with lowlands subject to tidal action or subject to coastal storm flowage. Coastal banks, therefore, can occur around non -tidal ponds, lakes and streams provided that these elevated landforms confine water associated with coastal storm events, up to the 100-year storm elevation or storm of record. Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, in turn, is defined at 310 CMR 10.04 as: "land subject to any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that caused by the 100-year storm, surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater". The Department uses the 100-year coastal flooding event as defined and mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) per the National Flood Insurance Program, as the maximum flood elevation associated with land subject to coastal storm flowage, unless recorded storm data reveals a higher flood elevation (which is the storm of record). Analysis Top of Coastal Bank Delineation The phrase'top of coastal bank" is used to establish the landward edge of the coastal bank (310 CMR 10.30). There is no definition for'top of coastal bank" provided in the Act or the Regulations. A Guide to the Coastal Wetlands Regulations, prepared by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, upon which Conservation Commissions and the Department have relied for guidance, states that the landward boundary of a coastal bank is 'the top of, or first major break in, the face of the coastal bank", and implies that it is easily identified using United States Geologic Survey topographic quadrangles. However, the scale of topographic quadrangle maps generally do not allow for parcel specific analysis. No further definition of "top of and "major break" is provided. The following standards should be used to delineate the 'top of coastal bank" [refer to figures 1-7 for a graphic presentation of the information below]: A) The slope of a coastal bank must be greater than or equal to 10:1 (see Figure 1 . B) For a coastal bank with a slope greater than or equal to 4:1 the 'top of coastal bank" is that point above the 100-year flood elevation where the slope becomes less than 4:1. (see Figure 2). C) For a coastal bank with a slope greater than or equal to 10:1 but less than 4:1, the top of coastal bank is the 100- year flood elevation. (see Figure 3 . D) A'top of coastal bank" will fall below the 100-year flood elevation and is the point where the slope ceases to be greater than or equal to 10:1. (see Figure 4). E) There can be multiple coastal banks within the same site. This can occur where the coastal banks are separated by land subject to coastal storm flowage [an area less than 10:1 ]. (See Figures 5 and 6). When a landform, other than a coastal dune, has a slope that is so gentle and continuous that it does not act as a vertical buffer and confine elevated storm waters, that landform does not qualify as a coastal bank. Rather, gently sloping landforms at or below the 100-year flood elevation which have a slope less than 10:1 shall be regulated as "land subject to coastal storm flowage" and not as coastal bank (see Figure ).Land subject to coastal storm flowage may overlap other wetland resource areas such as coastal beaches and dunes. Information Requirements for Project Review Due to the complex topography associated with coastal banks, the following requirements are intended to promote consistent delineations. In order to accurately delineate a coastal bank, the following information should be submitted, at a minimum„ to the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental �Mtection: the coastal bank should be delineated and mapped on a plan(s) to a scale of not greater than 1 inch = 50 feet, including a plan view and a cross section(s) of the area being delineated showing the slope profile, the linear distance used to calculate the slope profile, and the location of this linear distance. In addition, there must be an indication which of the five diagrams mentioned above is (are) representative of the site. Averaging and/or interpolating contours on plans can result in inaccurate delineations. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that follow-up field observations be made to verify delineations made from engineering plan data and as shown on the submitted plans. The final approval of resource boundary delineations rests with the issuing authority (Conservation Commission or Department of Environmental Protection). Page 1 of 3 A to Z atk* Links r Water Resources index r http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/regulations/wetlands-program-policy-92-... 1 /7/2016 Wetlands Program Policy 92-1: Coastal Banks I MassDEP Page 2 of 3 Figures 1. 2, and 3 3 2 1 Figure 1 4:1 10:1 Note that 4:1 siotx is greater than (steeper than) 10:1 slope, - 4:1 is cyuivalcnl to 14 &-gm-cs or 25 pxccnt, 10:1 is cyuivalcnl to fi dtgrecs or 10 lien .nt. Leland - Fisorea 2 and 3 are not to scale ' 100 year flood elevation (as shown on community FIRM) or storm of record Land subject to coastal storm flowage %I=17) Top al Bank Bank / c4:1 gto:t -We 3 M Comal Bank • Toe of bank which lies at the landward edge of a coastal beach, land subject to tidal anion, or other wetland http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/regulations/wetlands-program-policy-92-... 1 /7/2016 Wetlands Program Policy 92-1: Coastal Banks I MassDEP 6 1 1 11 LSCSF \"T.OP of Bank <t0.1 • Bank Z10:1 Figure 4 <a:1 r TOp of Bank `7;Znk &IToJISaft Sank at 34.1 Figure 6 t esead - Fitu-4, S, 6, and 7 am met to wait 100 year flood elevation (as shown on community FIRM) or storm of record a>. Land wbfect to coastal storm (towage (LSCSF) op of Bank }` • Top of Bank Bank Mt <4� 1 Z10:1 LSCSF <10:1 • Bank a2 >t0:Mod Figure 5 No Coastal Bank Exists V LSCSF <t0:1 Figure 7 INS Coastal Bank • Toe of bank which lies at the landward wise of a coastal beach, land subject to tidal action, or other wettand Did you find the information you were looking for on this page? O Yes O No Send Feedback ® 2016 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mass.Gov® is a registered service mark of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Page 3 of 3 EEA Site Policies Contact EEA About EEA Public Records Request http://www.mass.gov/eealagencies/massdep/water/regulations/wetlands-program-policy-92-... 1 /7/2016 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands MassDEP File #: WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent eDEP Transaction #:797231 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City/Town:YARMOUTH A.General Information 1. Project Location: a. Street Address 188 BERRY AVENUE b. City/Town YARMOUTH c. Zip Code 02673 d. Latitude 41.64118N e. Longitude 70.24596W f. Map/Plat # 16 g.Parcel/Lot # 52 2. Applicant: r Individual r Organization a. First Name ALI R. & ELAINE R. b. Last Name BIGDELIAZARI c. Organization d. Mailing Address 18 JUNIPER ROAD e. City/Town MEDWAY f. State MA g. Zip Code 02053 h. Phone Number i. Fax j. Email 3.Property Owner: r more than one owner a. First Name ALI & ELAINE b. Last Name BIGDELIAZARI c. Organization d. Mailing Address 18 JUNIPER ROAD e. City/Town MEDWAY f.State MA g. Zip Code 02053 h. Phone Number i. Fax j.Email 4.Representative: a. First Name LYNNE WHITING b. Last Name HAMLYN c. Organization HAMLYN CONSULTING d. Mailing Address 690 THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE e. City/Town BREWSTER f State MA g. Zip Code 02631 h.Phone Number 508-258-3211 i.Fax 508-258-3211 j.Email lhamlyn@capecodwetlands.com 5.ToW WPA Fee Paid (Automatically inserted from NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form): a.Total Fee Paid 440.00 b. State Fee Paid 207.50 c.City/Ibwn Fee Paid 232.50 6.General Project Description: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING: CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE ADDITIONS, PORCH AND DECK; GARAGE AND DECK; POOL WITH POOL EQUIPMENT AND APRON; PATIOS; AND DRIVE EXPANSION. 7a.Project Type: 1. r Single Family Home 2. r Residential Subdivision 3. r Limited Project Driveway Crossing 4. r CommercialMdustrial 5. r Dock/Pier 6. r Utilities 7. r Coastal Engineering Structure 8. r Agriculture (eg., cranberries, forestry) 9. r Transportation 10. r Other 7b.Is any portion of the proposed activity eligible to be treated as a limited project subjec 0 CMR Yarmouth Conservation Pit COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands MassDEP File #: t WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent eDEP Transaction #:797231 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City/I'own:YARMOUTH 10.53 (inland)? 1. r Yes r No If yes, describe which limited project applies to this project: 2. Limited Project 8.Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: a.County: b.Certificate: c.Book: d.Page: BARNSTABLE 28486 345 B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) LBuffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent): r This is a Buffer Zone only project - Check if the project is located only in the Buffer Zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Inland Bank, or Coastal Resource Area. 2.Inland Resource Areas: (See 310 CMR 10.54 - 10.58, if not applicable, go to Section B.3. Coastal Resource Areas) Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) a. F Bank 1. linear feet 2. linear feet b. r Bordering Vegetated Wetland 1. square feet 2. square feet c. r Land under Waterbodies and Waterways 1. Square feet 2. square feet 3. cubic yards dredged d. f Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 1. square feet 2. square feet 3. cubic feet of flood storage lost 4. cubic feet replaced e. r Isolated Land Subject to Flooding 1. square feet 2. cubic feet of flood storage lost 3. cubic feet replaced f. r Riverfront Area 1. Name of Waterway (if any) 2. Width of Riverfront Area (check one) r 25 ft. - Designated Densely Developed Areas only r 100 ft. -New agricultural projects only r 200 ft. - All other projects 3. Total area of Riverfront Area on the site of the proposed project square feet 4. Proposed Alteration of the Riverfront Area: a. total square feet b. square feet within 100 ft. c. square feet between 100 ft. and 200 8. 5. Has an alternatives analysis been done and is it attached to this NOI? r Yes r-" No Page 2 of 7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Li Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands MassDEP File #: WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent eDEP Transaction #:797231 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City/Town:YARMOUTH 6. Was the lot where the activity is proposed created prior to August 1, 1996? f Yes r No 3.Coastal Resource Areas: (See 310 CMR 10.25 - 10.35) Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) a. r Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land under the ocean below, b. r Land Under the Ocean 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dredged c. r Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coatstal Dunes, below d. r Coastal Beaches 1. square feet 2. cubic yards beach nourishment e. I— Coastal Dunes 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dune nourishment f F Coastal Banks 20 1. linear feet g. r Rocky Intertidal Shores 1. square feet h. F Salt Marshes 1. square feet 2. sq ft restoration, rehab, crea. i r Land Under Salt Ponds 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dredged j. r Land Containing Shellfish 1. square feet k. r Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above 1. cubic yards dredged L r Land Subject to Coastal 5600 Storm Flowage 1. square feet 4.Restoration/Enhancement r Restoration/Replacement If the project is for the purpose of restoring or enhancing a wetland resource area in addition to the square footage that has been entered in Section B.2.b or B.3.h above, please entered the additional amount here. a. square feet of B V W b. square feet of Salt Marsh 5.Projects Involves Stream Crossings f Project Involves Streams Crossings If the project involves Stream Crossings, please enter the number of new stream crossings/number of replacement stream crossings. a. number of new stream crossings b. number of replacement stream crossings Page 3 of 7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: - Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands MassDEP File #: �., WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent eDEP Transaction #:797231 ,t Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City/Town:YARMOUTH C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements Streamlined Massachusetts Endangered Species Act/Wetlands Protection Act Review 1. Is any portion of the proposed project located in Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife as indicated on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map of State -Listed Rare Wetland Wildlife published by the Natural Heritage of Endangered Species program (NHESP)? a. r Yes F No If yes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery of NOI to: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581 b. Date of map:FROM MAP VIEWER If yes, the project is also subject to Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) review (321 CMR 10.18).... c. Submit Supplemental Information for Endangered Species Review * (Check boxes as they apply) r Percentage/acreage of property to be altered: (a) within Wetland Resource Area (b) outside Resource Area percentage/acreage percentage/acreage 2. I-- Assessor's Map or right-of-way plan of site 3. r Project plans for entire project site, including wetland resource areas and areas outside of wetland jurisdiction, showing existing and proposed conditions, existing and proposed tree/vegetation clearing line, and clearly demarcated limits of work ** a. r Project description (including description of impacts outside of wetland resource area & buffer zone) b. f Photographs representative of the site c. r— MESA filing fee (fee information available at: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfw/natural-heritagelregulatorv- review/mass-endangered-species-act-mesa/mesa-fee-schedule.html ) Make check payable to "Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund" and mail to NHESP at above address Projects altering 10 or more acres of land, also submit: d. r Vegetation cover type map of site e. r Project plans showing Priority & Estimated Habitat boundaries d. OR Check One of the following 1. r Project is exempt from MESA review. Attach applicant letter indicating which MESA exemption applies. (See 321 CMR 10.14, httv://www.mass.eov/eea/agencies/dfg/dfwllaws-regulations/cmr/321-cmr-1000-massachusetts-endangered-species- act.html# 10.14; the NOI must still be sent to NHESP if the project is within estimated habitat pursuant to 310 CMR 10.37 and 10.59.) 2. f Separate MESA review ongoing. a. NHESP Tracking Number b. Date submitted to NHESP 3. r Separate MESA review completed. Include copy of NHESP "no Take" determination or valid Conservation & Management Permit with approved plan. * Some projects not in Estimated Habitat may be located in Priority Habitat, and require NHESP review... Page 4 of 7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: L7 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands MassDEP File #: WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent eDEP Transaction #:797231 City/Town:YARMOUTH Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 2. For coastal projects only, is any portion of the proposed project located below the mean high waterline or in a fish run? a. f Not applicable - project is in inland resource area only b. r Yes r No If yes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery of NOI to either: South Shore - Cohasset to Rhode North Shore - Hull to Island, and the Cape & Islands: New Hampshire: Division of Marine Fisheries - Division of Marine Southeast Marine Fisheries Station Fisheries - Attn: Environmental Reviewer North Shore Office 1213 Purchase street - 3rd floor Attn: Environmental New Bedford, MA 02740-6694 Reviewer 30 Emerson Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 If yes, it may require a Chapter 91 license. For coastal towns in the Northeast Region, please contact MassDEP's Boston Office. For coastal towns in the Southeast Region, please contact MassDEP's Southeast Regional office. 3. Is any portion of the proposed project within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)? a. r Yes r No b. ACEC Name If yes, provide name of ACEC (see instructions to WPA Form 3 or DEP Website for ACEC locations). Note: electronic filers click on Website. 4. Is any portion of the proposed project within an area designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) as designated in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00? a. r- Yes r No 5. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order under the Inland Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L.c. 131, § 40A) or the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L.c. 130, § 105)? a. I— Yes F No 6. Is this project subject to provisions of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards? a. f Yes, Attach a copy of the Stormwater Report as required by the Stormwater Management Standards per 310 CMR 10.05 (6)(k)-(q) and check if: Applying for Low Impact Development (LID) site design credits (as described in Stormwater Management Handbook 1' r Vol.2, Chapter 3) 2. f A portion of the site constitutes redevelopment 3. r Proprietary BMPs are included in the Stormwater Management System b. r No, Explain why the project is exempt: 1. r Single Family Home 2. r Emergency Road Repair Small Residential Subdivision (less than or equal to 4 single-family houses or less than or equal to 4 units in multi -family 3' r housing project) with no discharge to Critical Areas. D. Additional Information Applicants must include the following with this Notice of Intent (NOI). See instructions for details. Online Users: Attach the document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) for any of the following information you submit to the Department by regular mail delivery. Page 5 of 7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: �. -- Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands MassDEP File #: V., WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent eDEP Transaction #:797231 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City/Town:YARMOUTH ,5 1. r USGS or other map of the area (along with a narrative description, if necessary) containing sufficient information for the Conservation Commission and the Department to locate the site. (Electronic filers may omit this item.) 2. r Plans identifying the location of proposed activities (including activities proposed to serve as a Bordering Vegetated Wetland [BV W] replication area or other mitigating measure) relative to the boundaries of each affected resource area 3. F Identify the method for BVW and other resource area boundary delineations (MassDEP BV W Field Data Form(s). Determination of Applicability, Order of Resource Area Delineation, etc.), and attach documentation of the methodology. 4. r List the titles and dates for all plans and other materials submitted with this NOI. a. Plan Title: b. Plan Prepared By: c. Plan Signed/Stamped By: c. Revised Final Date: e. Scale: PLAN OF LAND IN YARMOUTH, MA, 188 BERRY AVENUE, WEST YARMOUTH, PREPARED FOR ALI & ELAINE BIGDELIAZARI DEMAREST LAND SURVEYING 12/21/2015 ELEVATION PLANS, PROPOSED RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS FOR ALI & ELAINE GARY A. ELLIS 12/21/2015 BIGDELIAZARI, 188 BERRY AVENUE, WEST YARMOUTH, MA BY N.S.B.C., INC. 5. f If there is more than one property owner, please attach a list of these property owners not listed on this form. 6. f Attach proof of mailing for Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, if needed. 7. r- Attach proof of mailing for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, if needed. 8. F Attach NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form. 9. r- Attach Stormwater Report, if needed. Page 6 of 7 * ELECTRONIC COPY i Mass uhusetts Depict linent of Envirenjonttal Protection t4ovided by, M:LI,4y1iP; �..... F3omau of R"ource i'rowctios) - Wttfan& 1vlsasDEPF'ik P WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent rU1:i' a't;tl)sWatnf179733t Massxelulsetts urei.1mids Piatection Act M,ti.E,. c. 131, §44 C'iiylF(awT):YAitMUli'tH E.-Fees rw L'xerhA Na f,Piag Ice shall h. &solved for ptcjre!s t><any.cily, ttw a eituur, er usititl of 1ik Cd tanwtnw>,t11A. fedaraby' rcoopniaad Pndiu eribzhausu+gaaulnrily,ntlnaeinntlmnsingair[kor;n,ortluMaasdcb.,l3cnsL';y Tran;narta4i<rn.,uli,nriq. �itplimsv s r.4ust wl sti4 tnc fAllpt+sng ildkmation (;a :..kKpun h' P�C�s t and ^, of ihv X')) tle,leod Fag 1 txm) to <SM11itn tc + f a,+,tr,rt. _972-t.. Z "l2Z- 17-. ( -, ?. 11.16li`l Cke f, llm•.wt ). Chret e.ec 2-7--�6 ( L- 2..c- f 4. 6,atir 'r . k 1,:+ee j Clod jr_•r M=u V\ 4 PA' cnaro on ,,ik'lint a,nri 7 P,ryn n,, .,c o,: cl.•oct-Lao N: .. r F.Signatures and Submittal Requirements P hereby ccaki 114td4, ILc',pvN0a1N 5 U fPmiM. I ebr Nreyoing hr ica of WC-ist "d acrnn!pa;yitee peons, dustu wos., nad w4tp warty 01a at,: trtt as i wmpteu to the Itrct of nej ktWtt'IcJr�, P tltuk:'rstet+d lhlq Ibr inr.!.rn;nr+n C'amrtioian will fildsl' ii0tilicatioa oC d!is Nt?Iwe In a PocaP 1tt:a'sp:,px ut 00 0F.MQ of I&,atltlii:nnt is 4w:usn6 rtce ,rt1h 1119 natsrids re-.*Wia,:s, 3t0 0A414 14t',513i(a) 1 ftn:ha �ertifj' w,dgr �cnbatscs Of a><vjaty 13roa adi sisai:er: ilea cu(iC+c� oflhiarlyl:ic:H'vtn, Pcra+rnat to the rerTl:iraroeals 4f Al fa.l.. c. P 3i, � fin, ?dotioc ntWsi be +tvA h., CcAfuata of Mvili:tg or in t iWat k hs+wi dolist,? or tcrtif cd ,tU,i1 mum roCwjr. requested) %Oaf[ *.Utwers tsitilks 100 rett of the proite try lino of j,o IKrjoat k+CAlion Trnr h. Wce For Conservation commiasiarr: TWO COWS of 11+.• ct1:11Pt4110 NO( C Of I19,9n! (Tntm 3). i,w•Pvding 3+t,y4M oG plaoi .y.0 0.,a ews. 14o rJrlts Of 1411: rul WLtijad f et: TianswittaP i:Onn. 8rni ;be cily.•su:vn Aw pyriolt, to the Co Metg,0:4u CW1tnus on by orriif,_tf mil at Mad dcli•aery. I•or5�laal7Tii". O ta:ro�n *('the oiatpkted Trmug of Ptl'ent (('o;,n 3). inehtlitnm .Wpontng plows xttd,da ;n+snGt, nl:v copy o!'Ihe WN 14edand Ver K nlilaiiful form. �n3 w nh s or'lue .tt rt. kt Pwq,r. eat ;u tl a Atlttii)EP Ptcgion: t f)RPte {srr;n;ttei 4iolts) b,crrtiited.nmii or herd u Eisen. Other; If the cWW4 Zak 'yW T1o!: in I.Cectic,r C. Pt'Oi; 1•1- shove, refer in Ills[ $6010h NO the hisec,xtibns ftx ad:ritiazist sbimthia! retpiremeatc. 1"Pte afiPjiltbl :nt0 COfiet rt:,aP be sanf siniulla,so,rl:;Iy. Fa;1a!e 1!Y 1h< aFy lik:m k� fens u1pro► tte a ttrraly w,tarai glary• result in dislPFiSSaf of tAe Yttticc o! initlx. Payc 7 of 7 IF ELEi:TRONIC COPY Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA Discussion of Proposed Activity The Applicants propose to improve the existing single family dwelling at 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth: removal of house section, construction of house additions, porch and deck; garage and deck; pool with pool equipment and apron; patios; and drive expansion. Work is to be done within land subject to coastal storm flowage and the buffer zone to a coastal bank. Resource areas Land subject to coastal storm flowage Two 100-year flood zones occur on the property, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on their Flood National Flood Hazard Layer (attached): The landward boundary of Flood Zone VE, elevation 13, is located along and parallel to the coastal bank. Flood Zone AE, elevation 11 feet, extends from the landward boundary of the VE Zone to the northeast property corner at elevation 11 feet. Coastal bank The top of the coastal bank was delineated in accordance with Wetlands Protection Program Policy 92-1 and is located where the break in slope becomes less than 25 percent below the 100-year flood zone. The bank is armored with a vertical bulkhead at its base and is vegetated along the slope face, providing a stable buffer to storm and flood waters. The upper portion of the bank has been maintained historically as lawn. Proposed construction House additions The Applicants propose to expand the living area of the main house 5 feet over the existing brick. The rubber deck above will extend 2 feet beyond; surface run-off will drain into subsurface drywells. The brick patio shall be repaired post - construction, as necessary. A 528 square -foot addition, with crawlspace foundation, is proposed at the southeast house corner. A proposed laundry and mudroom will connect the house to the proposed garage, to include a covered porch on the entrance side. A section of the house will be removed to accommodate a proposed patio and pool. The patios to the north and south of the addition are to be drylaid slate. Garage The proposed garage will have an office and recreation room above, as well as a second -story deck. The driveway is to be expanded and constructed with pervious materials, to access the new garage. Pool An inground swimming pool with pool apron is proposed between the proposed house addition and garage. The pool is to be maintained with salt chlorination and cartridge filters. The pool apron is to be stamped concrete; surface run-off will drain onto the adjacent lawn. The existing septic line from the dwelling to the tank runs through the proposed pool area, and will be relocated in compliance with Title 5 and Town of Yarmouth Regulations. The septic tank location is to be verified by the contractor and if too close to the proposed pool, will be relocated to the minimum setback required under State and Municipal Health Regulations. Mitigation A work limit line is to be established with siltation fencing backed by staked coir logs prior to any work being done and shall be maintained until the construction is complete. Roof run-off is to be directed to drywells or stone trenches along the drip line. Disturbed areas are to be revegetated. Replaced lawn areas are to be seeded with a conservation mix, underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of loam. The net increase in hardscape in the 50-foot buffer is 1692 square feet. As mitigation, the Applicants propose to remove a minimum of 1692 square feet of lawn, and seed the area with New England Coastal Salt Tolerant Grass Mix, by New England Wetlands Plants, Inc., to reduce managed lawn on the coastal bank and increase the natural vegetative buffer to coastal waters. The area is to be monitored for 3 years to ensure full coverage. In addition, a single rail fence, or alternative with prior approval by the Commission/Staff, shall be installed at the landward edge of the planted area to discourage future creep. Performance standards Coastal bank In accordance with MA Wetlands Protection Regulation 310 CMR 10.30(6), the bank is significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it is a vertical buffer to storm waters; 310 CMR 10.30(6) through (8) shall apply: (6) Any project on such a coastal bank or within 100 feet landward of the top of such coastal bank shall have no adverse effects on the stability of the coastal bank. The low -profile coastal bank is armored at its base and vegetated to the top, providing a stable buffer to storm and flood waters. Mitigation for the proposed construction increases the natural buffer on the bank. The existing construction occurs up to the top of the coastal bank. All construction, with the exception the proposed patio corner - —20 sf - is located landward of the top of bank. The proposed construction will not destabilize the coastal bank. A work limit line is to be established 10 feet from the building footprint to minimize disturbance to the resource area. All disturbed areas are to be revegetated upon completion of construction to preclude erosion and sedimentation. N (7) Bulkheads, revetments, seawalls, groins or other coastal engineering structures may be permitted on such a coastal bank except when such bank is significant to storm damage prevention or flood control because it supplies sediment to coastal beaches, coastal dunes, and barrier beaches. Not applicable. (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.30(3) through (7), no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species, as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.37. The project area is not mapped as Estimated or Priority Habitat by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. C IV 0 U) III li��. one :::'8 m :i:, Fil 711 �11 lI.. !M� ! immooffiMll 1=11041 ME. �Io� 7lm-m-7,r 1176, 1 m�w M I Om� ���Mm ST �ELEVATION llr.V� I , li______________r1 popo SOUTH ELEVATION v�•. ra HIM --------------------- Eris bwo W O ea � a H � MiE ,l,n,m, PW.-d EAST ELEVATION uuE "eNOfm 1q•. p,�. waNr<or PESERA1LS.pE wcW,.W10ENT, W55�OU8Efi, ST�TE&MWIECWEfl�MH ®1IKK1„MYRI,MII�IONE � - 11 29 AC v 2+ Q ? 0' AC 35 i 029`t„ C2� / w= AC� 8 27 20 AC ,f> 'o.� A,Dt 0 ? 22 C 1 29A 22 AC ( .#AC DATE OF LATEST MAP REVISION: 911605 MTION SHOWN HEREON IS FOR ASSESSING SES ONLY. NO LIABILITY FOR ERROR IS ED BY THE TOWN OF YARMOUTH 100 50 0 100 ZOOFeet i 4. 2g AC 37 C 231 Q�'� tMa 2W m x Lem BAY BE .40AC 32A BAY�� .39 g AC b 2.1. /�C C 1/ p 0.. AC j120 4� f 11 1:e 1 AC ,5 4k Pio 1Yt6 LEWIS BAY TAX MAP TOWN OF YARMOUTH BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS 73 1.76 AC 1 z, sz za Sheet 17 16 16/ , 53/ WHITE RICHARD A WHITE JOAN P 6189 SHOREWOOD COURT LISLE, IL 60532 16/ 511 TROZZI MARIA TR BERRY AVE RLTY TRUST 1241 ADAMS ST #604 DORCHESTER CENTER, MA 02124-5775 16/ 42/ HYANNIS YACHT CLUB 470 OCEAN ST WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673 16/ 41/ FLANAGAN FAMILY 2008 IRR INCOME TR C/O FRANCIS FLANAGAN 23 LEEMOND ST WILBRAHAM, MA 01095 16/ 49/ GALLAGHER BRIAN E GALLAGHER JENNIFER A 2 OLD HARRY RD SOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772 16/ 52/ BIGDELIAZARI ALI R BIGDELIAZARI ELAINE R 18 JUNIPER RD MEDWAY, MA 02053 16/ 501 DURKIN JANET A TRS DURKIN MICHAEL J TRS 15 LEWIS BAY BLVD WEST YARMOUTH, MA 02673 12/18/15 Please use the signature below to certify the owners with 100' of 188 Berry Ave, West Yarmouth, MA. 690 Thousand Oaks Drive, Brewster, MA 02631 • Phone & Fax: (508) 258-321 1 December 21, 2015 Dear Abutter: Acting under the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, and Town of Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Bylaw, Chapter 143, the Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on the application of: Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari 8 Juniper Road Medway, MA 02053 to improve the existing single-family dwelling: remove house section, construct house additions, porch and deck; garage" and deck; pool with pool equipment and apron; patios; and expand drive, at 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA (Assessor's Map 16, Parcel 52). The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 7, 2016 in the Hearing Room at Yarmouth Town Hall,1146 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA beginning at 7:00 pm. Plans are on file at the Conservation Commission Office. Notice as per Ed Hoopes, Chairman of the Conservation Commission in and for the Town of Yarmouth. Yours truly, Lynne Whiting Hamlyn Environmental Consultant Ow w FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer 188 Berry Avenue, West Yarmouth, MA F 5 1JL As Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection L!J Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. A. Applicant Information Location of Project: 188 Berry Avenue (West) Yarmouth a. Street Address b. City/Town c. Check number 2. Applicant Mailing Address: Ali & Elaine a. First Name c. Organization 8 Juniper Road d. Mailing Address Medwav e. City/Town d. Fee amount Bigdeliazari b. Last Name MA f. State Yarmouth Conservation ="E Commission Er'FIV 02053 g. Zip Code h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email Address 3. Property Owner (if different): Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari a. First Name b. Last Name c. Organization 8 Juniper Road d. Mailing Address Medway MA 0202053 e. City/Town f. State g. Zip Code h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email Address To calculate B. Fees filing fees, refer to the category fee list and Fee should be calculated using the following process & worksheet. Please see Instructions before examples in the filling out worksheet. instructions for filling out WPA Step 1/Type of Activity: Describe each type of activity that will occur in wetland resource area and buffer zone. Form 3 (Notice of Intent). Step 2/Number of Activities: Identify the number of each type of activity. Step 3/Individual Activity Fee: Identify each activity fee from the six project categories listed in the instructions. Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee: Multiply the number of activities (identified in Step 2) times the fee per category (identified in Step 3) to reach a subtotal fee amount. Note: If any of these activities are in a Riverfront Area in addition to another Resource Area or the Buffer Zone, the fee per activity should be multiplied by 1.5 and then added to the subtotal amount. Step 5/Total Project Fee: Determine the total project fee by adding the subtotal amounts from Step 4 Step 6/Fee Payments: To calculate the state share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and subtract $12.50. To calculate the city/town share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and add $12.50. noiieetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/17/11 Page 1 of 2 .1% LlMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands l� NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Fees (continued) Step 1/Type of Activity Step 2/Number Step Step 4/Subtotal Activity of Activities 3/Individual Fee Activity Fee Category 1 a 4 $440.00 $ 440.00 Town of Yarmouth 4 $400.00 $400.00 Step 5/Total Project Fee: $840.00 Step 6/Fee Payments: Total Project Fee: $840.00 a. Total Fee from Step 5 State share of filing Fee: $207.50 b. 1/2 Total Fee less $12.50 City/Town share of filling Fee: $232.50+$400.00=632.50 c. 1/2 Total Fee plus $12.50 C. Submittal Requirements a.) Complete pages 1 and 2 and send with a check or money order for the state share of the fee, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 b.) To the Conservation Commission: Send the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and the city/town fee payment. To MassDEP Regional Office (see Instructions): Send a copy of the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and a copy of the state fee payment. (E-filers of Notices of Intent may submit these electronically.) noifeetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/17/11 page 2 of 2 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. rye ram Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Applicant Information Location of Project: 188 Berry Avenue (West) Yarmouth a. Street Address b. City/Town c. Check number d. Fee amount 2. Applicant Mailing Address: Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari a. First Name b. Last Name c. Organization 8 Juniper Road d. Mailing Address Medwav e. Cityrrown h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email Address 3. Property Owner (if different): Ali & Elaine Bigdeliazari a. First Name b. Last Name MA f. State 02053 g. Zip Code c. Organization 8 Juniper Road d. Mailing Address Medway MA 0202053 e. Cityrrown f. State g. Zip Code h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email Address To calculate B. Fees filing fees, refer to the category fee list and Fee should be calculated using the following process & worksheet. Please see Instructions before examples in the filling out worksheet. instructions for filling out WPA Step 1/Type of Activity: Describe each type of activity that will occur in wetland resource area and buffer zone. Form 3 (Notice of Intent). Step 2/Number of Activities: Identify the number of each type of activity. Step 3/Individual Activity Fee: Identify each activity fee from the six project categories listed in the instructions. Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee: Multiply the number of activities (identified in Step 2) times the fee per category (identified in Step 3) to reach a subtotal fee amount. Note: If any of these activities are in a Riverfront Area in addition to another Resource Area or the Buffer Zone, the fee per activity should be multiplied by 1.5 and then added to the subtotal amount. Step 5/Total Project Fee: Determine the total project fee by adding the subtotal amounts from Step 4. Step 6/Fee Payments: To calculate the state share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and subtract $12.50. To calculate the city/town share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and add $12.50. noifeetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/17/11 Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Fees {continued) Step 1/Type of Activity Step 2/Number of Activities Category 1 a 4 Town of Yarmouth 4 C. Submittal Requirements Step Step 4/Subtotal Activity 3/Individual Fee Activity Fee $440.00 $ 440.00 $400.00 $400.00 Step 5/Total Project Fee: $840.00 Step 6/Fee Payments: Total Project Fee: $840.00 a. Total Fee from Step 5 State share of filing Fee: $207.50 b. 1/2 Total Fee less $12.50 City/Town share of filling Fee: $232.50+$400.00=632.50 c. 1/2 Total Fee plus $12.50 a.) Complete pages 1 and 2 and send with a check or money order for the state share of the fee, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 b.) To the Conservation Commission: Send the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and the city/town fee payment. To MassDEP Regional Office (see Instructions): Send a copy of the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and a copy of the state fee payment. (E-filers of Notices of Intent may submit these electronically.) noifeetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/17/11 Page 2 of 2 HAMLYN CONSULTING Cpe 2720 690 THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE ``�� BREWSTER, MA 02631 TEL. (508) 258.3211 53-7107l2113 PAYTHE ORDER OF DOLLARS Security features Details on back. MEMO � AUTHORIZE/< NP D SIGNATURE 11110 2 7 Me is 2 1 1 3 7 10 Mi: 88 40 2 6 5 191 THE FACE OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS A COLORED BACKGROUND ON WHITE PAPER AND ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SECURITY SCREEN ON BACK WITH PADLOCK SECURITY [CON. HAMLYN CONSULTING 2721 690 THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE BREWSTER, MA 02631 TEL. (508) 258-3211 53-7107/2113 � C-•Z F 2-0 PAY TO THE3Z- ORDER OF �/L $ Z� f% v"� DOLLARS eSecunty features ' included. Details on back. NP MEMO 1 1—c �✓1C�'� AUTHORIZED SIGNAT RE 1180 2 7 2 La■ 1: 2 113 7 10 781: 88 40 26 19n■ HAMLYN CONSULTING Cpe 2722 690 THOUSAND OAKS DRIVE BREWSTER, MA 02631 TEL. (508) 258-3211 53-7107/2113 ac- PAY TO THE v ,t � T t1l�q UC} ORDER OF �/ ��-- V� $ — DOLLARS aSecunty features included. Details on back. MEMO CJ�-+t—C 1 Cc�1 /�UM �ALUITHomm-6-sl III 02722no is211371078is 88 40 26 19110GNATURE 13273 Burroughs Acoountlng Systems Co.. Tel. (800) 680-4541 Order # 1507974-1 m (Domestic MaH Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) ru r- For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.comit, --MTONP MA 02211 cc 0638 U1 Posages 1-16 Certified Fee $0. N, Postm k $- 0.00- OReturn Receipt Fee C:3 (Endorsement Required) Here Restricted Delivery Fee E:3 (Endorsement Required) Ln 0 C3 M Total Postage & /2 $6. ru Sent To r=I Mt. pz - -- ------------ -------- or PO Box No. 4i ) 'i (:�� L ------ — -------- -- A ------------- --------- — ------ I r*- Domestic Mail Only Ln r-q For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com'. ru LISLE, -1L 0532 Certified Mail Fee $3.45 78 Er Extra Se ices&Fees (check box, add fee I p to) El ReceiptRetur"'(hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ Postmark It 1:3 E] Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ $0 - rj() I C r-3 E] Adult Signature Required 1 $0.00 L. A 1:3 ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ E3 Postage = $0.49 -a Total Postage and s. 7 4 5 C3 V Lcri ;Zn r- 06 r 0- VM ( A I , C+ Ln Domestic Mail Only Er r-q 3. 1. ru H8 SOUT WWU W r- I '1- _n Certified Mail Fee $3.45 0633 Ln $ 06 Er Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee ITI�prvPWIe" 17"- ❑ Return Receipt (handcopy) ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ $ tniuk C3 E3 ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ $O-rjrj - Here C3 E] Adult Signature Required $ $0.00, [-] Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $171.49 $ C3 -1 2/22/t Total Postage and C3 7�074 Ln init ktx 61, r P9 ---- t: ro '9'isi �= I ------ i�' --------- — -------------- -J3 r%- Domestic MaY Only -J3 For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps-com". 171- 0 Er Postage $ ri Certified Fee C3 Return Receipt Fee Postmark Here C3 (Endorsement Required) C3 Restricted Delivery Fee E-3 (Endorsement Required) ru r-1 Total Postage & Fees I$ ru Sent To ,e M r%- --- ------- - ------------------------------------ or PO Box No. " le JU k7 1PV 0- AQOCZ Cl &I L ----------------------------- - ------- CityState, Z------------IP+4-------------------- eit ---------------------- MA V -? 0 S -3 Li I - PS Form 3800, July 2014 See Reverse for Instructions -1 Domestic Mail Only 171-1 xmin. im W-TORIM. ru WE9� YARMUU'fHv MA 02673 r%- _a Certified Mail Fee $3.45 Ln $ 41) Still Er Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee jap 171— ❑ Return Receipt (hardcOPY) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ —so.00 73 Postmark OD Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ $0 - rjCl Here r3 0 Adult Signature Required $ an Ar; Restricted Delivery $ E] Adult Signature P. Postage .49 $0 E3 '913 = —0 C3ip.74 12/22/2015 Total Postage and . Ln 171- 3nl T ee 61 -------------- Tt , / , U r-1 Domestic Mail Only 17` rq For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps-com'. ru WI LORAHNI r 11A! 01095 Certified Mail Fee $3.45 Ln $ !g-) sto Services Fees (check box, add fee V p to) Extra rv0 iv 17� ReturnReceipt (hardcopy) $ E3 Return Receipt (electronic) $ T Postmark E:3 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ So fjo Here E:3 C3 I- []Adult Signature Required $ $0.00 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ — — Postage 0.49 $ . 1 12/2 211 151 Total Postage and =74 C3 $ n-A Ln C� rr- S -m- --y- Apt. Of u6 ILx4D 1 - -- ---------- 4 U Postal Service TM CERTIFIED o RECEIPT �D Domesti c mail , nly rU R- .A Certified Mail Fee r� - Ln It ' Y Ex32 vo�i 4 tra Services &Fees (check box, add lee � ❑ Return Receipt (hanicopy) 40lrrte) ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) OEj Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ $ —S— - $ Postmark E=31 ❑Adult Signature Regwred ❑Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Z Here - - p Postage $ 44 $ _ ? � OTotal Postage and 74 12/22/" $ Lr) Se� T� h ` _4" -- Stlge�d� - ------ a---- - N � Lo o B x No. State ZIP+ ® -------- --- -�/� L/� he I7z/ --- — ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1 • Article Addressed to: Ali and Elaine Bigdeliazari 18 Juniper Road Medway, MA 02053 U.S. Postal Service'M CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at w— , -- A. Signature X 400,❑ Agent B. Received b Addressee y (Print✓;d Name) C. Date o D r ery z•j.M D. Is delivery address different from item 17 ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type D 4 Certified Malle ❑ Priority Mail Express'" ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise E3 Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted 2. Article Number a iveryr (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes Onitnsfer from service laben 7 014 2120 0004 19 0 9 7676 PS Form 3811, July 2013 -- Domestic Return Receipt ■ Complete itq ` g, ■ Print your name ar -;'address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the malipiece, or on the front ff space permits. 1- Article Addressed to: �3 �eentond Wilbrzlafl rrn� Elf�� A. Signature X B. Recei by ❑ Agent ❑ Addre C. Date of Deli D. Is delivery address different from item 17 [3 yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No II"III'I I'II I'I II III' III'I III I I II I'I III�'I'll D =It gstore Restricted Del ❑ R gsteredd Mail ResOlcted Mai ExpreaW 0lgnature ❑Registered Mail*M Malle 9590 9403 0356 5163 6194 75 ❑ Certifl d Mail Restricted Ivory ❑ Collect on Delivery Motu h Receipt for 2. Article Number ?rarrsfer from service /a6e0 13 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery ❑ Signature ConfimreHonTM 7 015 0640 0007 9567 2171 1i1 O Signature Confirmation UI Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt ■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this cans to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to. lC Jis �ivd IIII�IIIIIIIIIIII A. Signature X 0 Agent ❑ Addressee B. Received by (Prynted Name) D. Is delivery address different �]= If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No III IIilll 111 II I II III I service ryes 13 AduR Signature o a No* alNallPT^TM 0 9590 9403 0356 5163 6380 70 °2DCa edgMan® Restricted 13.4.y 13 De eryed Mail Reatdoted O CertlJW1 Mail ROBMC ed Delivery 0 Returo Receipt for ❑ Collect on Delivery Merchandise 2. Article Numhar /iFancfnr fmm cn..d. n ,e,,en n rsrra +on Delivery Restricted Ddnry ❑ Signature ComrfinnationTM 7 015 0640 0007 9567 2201 wall Restricted Dalivery ° R � Dives °" er PS Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt ; 1 1 346 7 JANET A. DURKIN, TUSTEE MICHAEL J DURKIN, TRUSTEE DB 27124 PG 232 MAP 16 PCL. 50 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY :H EXTENSION TO BE I STONE OR SHELL "I,')) CONSTRUCTION �,10 j PROPOSED 2N0 STORY DECK _ 38 $ CegCy AREA AREA 1 )POSED I N PROPOSED t1: PROPOS D 1X5' POOL VERED GARAGE MACHINERY ENCLOSURE DRCH 1 UNDER 2ND STORY DECK 1 i „p„ 130 J 1 1D PROP. ADD. to l 2,V I C RQ OSED SEPTIC TANK , J POOL PROPOSED 6' STAMPED moo„ AROUNE POOLRON 24'/ / TRANS 3 W SECTION F ING JNG 38 PROPOSED ADDITION ro 10.3' EXISTING N IP HOUSE TO TRANS 4 � 10.6' 0.7'1 TOF=11 t N �� _ BE REMOVED PROF'vx� .. PAlIO— -tI0 -RAIL FENCE SING EF pG 1 +6gj� i :W IS - BAY l 7.7 / I 6.1' fd FENCE LINE (TYPICAL) BRIAN E. & JENNIFER A. GALLAGHER CERTIFICATE #204949 MAP 16 PCL. 49 o� 2 �O 1�J� ►,� rN O� ROUTE J� N � s2�RC F m w BLVD L.00U 3Q ,6 o LEWIS BAY \ c LOCATION MAP SCALEI: 1 "=200 GENERAL NOTES: OWNER OF RECORD: ALI R. & ELAINE R. BIGDELIAZAI 18 JUNIPER ROAD MEDWAY, MA 02053 REFERENCES: DEED BOOK 28486 PAGE 345 LAND COURT PLAN #12442 LAND COURT PLAN #18145 PLAN BOOK 60 PAGE 141 ASSESSORS MAP 16 PARCEL 52 FLOOD ZONES: AE (EL11) VE (EL1; VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988 ZONING DISTRICT: R-25 LOT AREA: 25,000 S.F. FRONTAGE: 150' SETBACKS: FRONT. 30' SIDE: 15' REAR: 20' PROPOSED PATIOS TO BE DRY LAID SLATE CONSTRUCTION THE SEPTIC SYSTEM SHOWN ON T PLAN IS AN APPROXIMATE LOCATIO CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM COMPON AND SEPTIC LINE AND RELOCATE A NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH BOARD HEALTH REGULATIONS THE LAWN IN THE MITIGATION AREA TO BE SCRAPED AND THE AREA IS BE PLANTED WITH NEW ENGLAND 1 SALT TOLERANT GRASS MIX ROOF RUNOFF TO BE DIRECTED T DRY WELLS OR STONE TRENCHES DRIP LINE EXISTING BRICK PATIO TO BE REP I AS NECESSARY POST CONSTRUCTI I PLAN OF LAND I WEST YAR M O UTH , 188 BERRY AVEN PREPARED FOR: IS iS TO E ALI & ELAINE BIGDELIAZARI SCALE: I" = 30' DECEMBERI 21, 201 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEE JOHN Z. DEMAREST, 830' JR. 15' 0' 30' 60' 5 �No.36859P Ft ss%° DEMAREST LAND SURVEY NG 1 �1S,ib zt� 338 MAYFAIR ROAD SOUTH DENNIS, MA 02660 Ll 508-364-9049