EASTHAM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
14 July 2009
MINUTES
PRESENT: Steve Smith, Glenn Collins, David Hoerle, Steven LaBranche, Lorraine Giovinazzo, Dennis Murley.
STAFF PRESENT: Deputy Natural Resource Officer Amy Usowski.
ALSO PRESENT: Shawn E. Shea of Misty Hill Landscape Design, Sandra Larsen, R.B. Greifinger, Diana Digges, Charles Wentz of Ponderosa Landscaping, Katelyn Siddell of East Cape Engineering, Inc., Sandy Bayne, Joan Plante, Elaine Wright, Stuart Wright, Margaret Bogle, David Lyttle of Ryder & Wilcox, Inc.
Chairman Murley brought the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
7:02 P.M. Request for Change in Plans, Strauss, DEP SE 19-1284, 13 Martha Avenue Rear, Map 10, Parcel 202.
Commissioner Collins recused himself from this hearing.
David Lyttle of Ryder & Wilcox, Inc. was present and explained the Strauss’ request to install a Ground Source Heat Pump discharge well. He said it is something which DEP has guidelines for. He said it will be located within the approved limit of work.
He said the existing well near the Southerly boundary will be used for potable water and also be used to withdraw water which would run through a loop to be used for heat to bring up the temperature of the house and then it is returned through a discharge well which they propose to locate off the southwest corner of the house
Mr. Lyttle said the only change in the water is that it might be approximately 10
Deputy Usowski said the proposed location is within the approved limit of work. She said the applicants are using a lot of innovative ways of supplying energy for this house
and this is one of them. She said that her only concern is that some of the hay bales at the work limit are starting to degrade and should be replaced or fortified.
Mr. Lyttle said that this Order of Conditions is also for invasive plant management and that will begin after the nesting season is over. He said the discharge well is not a new technology but it has taken a while for DEP to develop regulations for these.
After brief discussion, Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Ms. Giovinazzo SECONDED the Motion to approve the change in plans for DEP SE 19-1284.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Collins returned to the hearing room.
7:15 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by Robert Greifinger, 475 Samoset Road, Map 14, Parcel 120.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. The applicant, Mr. Greifinger, was present and explained his proposal. He said he simply wants to trim the vegetation so they can get a better view of the pond. He said he is not going to destroy any vegetation. He said he wants to restore the path to 7½’ which had previously been approved by the Conservation Commission in the past for the previous owner of the property. He said that on the right side of the path they propose to trim the vegetation to a height of 4' and a width of 8' which will take it back to two Oak trees which are growing there. He said they will not disturb the Oak trees.
Deputy Usowski said that Mr. Greifinger purchased the property about fifteen months ago and before that time this site was in front of the Conservation Commission several times. She said the size of the path to the water meets the DEP guidelines so that his proposal is within allowable limits. She said some of the work is within the 50' Buffer Zone and some of the activities would take place with the Bordering Vegetated Wetland.
Deputy Usowski showed photos and said there would not be removal of any plants.
Commissioner Hoerle told Mr. Greifinger that he would like to back up what Deputy Usowski indicated and the he should keep the pruning on the conservative side. Mr. Greifinger agreed.
Chairman Murley told Mr. Greifinger that the Commission has dealt with these types of proposals a lot in the past and that often these jobs are done in stages. He said his proposal would be to allow Mr. Greifinger to restore the path to 7½’ now and then after leaf out and bird nesting is finished the Commissioners can make a site visit to determine exactly what needs to be trimmed for a view.
There was some discussion about the timing for the trimming. There was no further discussion and Chairman Murley closed the hearing.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. LaBranche SECONDED the Motion to approve this proposal with Order of Conditions 1-19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 34 maintenance of the path and vista
corridor to Jemima’s Pond, 37 the path shall be pruned to 7½’ wide; and in October 2009 the Conservation Commission will visit the site relative to vista pruning approval.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
7:30 P.M. Notice of Intent filed by Diana Digges, 835 Herringbrook Road, Map 13, Parcel 111.
Commissioner LaBranche recused himself from this hearing.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. The applicant was present along with Charles Wentz of Ponderosa Landscaping. Ms. Digges explained her proposal to manage invasive species, especially Bittersweet; to remove some dead tree limbs; and, to do some vista pruning.
Deputy Usowski said the applicant would like to maintain the height of the vegetation to what exists which varies from 4' to 10'. She said there are a lot of natives and a fair amount of Bittersweet. She showed photos of the site. She said that this proposal was difficult to put on a plan as it is pretty much managing the whole area.
Commissioner Hoerle made the specific suggestion regarding the Bittersweet that it is very manageable if you follow the root and pull it up by the root rather than cutting it. He said if it is cut it will grow back more vigorously and it is more easily defeated by removing the roots.
Chairman Murley said he did not think the proposal was specific enough and the work should be done on phases with a more formalized view corridor established at some stage. He said that any re-planting should be done with appropriate Coastal shrubbery such as Beach Plum or Bayberry. He said the Cherry trees will continue to grow to be very large. He said he thinks this property was mowed, perhaps by the previous owner and that is the reason for the present rush of second growth.
Mr. Murley told the applicant that the Conservation Commission certainly has no problem with invasive species control; but, no herbicides can be used so there has to be some sort of mechanical and/or pulling program. He said this will take persistence, particularly in the first couple of years.
There was some discussion about pruning the dead limbs on the Pitch Pines and the use by wildlife of the dead limbs. Chairman Murley said the Conservation Commission doesn’t want to see the “lollipopping” of any trees.
Deputy Usowski suggested that the first phase be the removal of the invasive species and then replanting to get started. She said that pruning doesn’t seem to be a big issue at this time and perhaps the work should be done in two or three phases. She said the Order of Conditions could contain wording for the phases. The Commissioners agreed that the invasive removal (particularly Bittersweet) should be done first, then re-planting, then pruning.
After some brief further discussion relative to how the phases should be staged, Chairman Murley closed the hearing and asked for a Motion.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Collins SECONDED the Motion for approval with Order of Conditions 1-19, 20, 21, 22 no work beyond the A.C.E.C. boundary of the 10' contour, 26, 29 if area becomes unstable or plants die as a result of pruning, the areas shall be stabilized through the planting of suitable native plants, 34 maintenance management of invasive species and vista pruning, 37 along the boundary of the A.C.E.C., 38 the project shall proceed in the following phases: 1. Begin removal of Bittersweet; 2. Remove more invasives (Honeysuckle, Bittersweet, Olive) and begin re-planting; and 3. Before any vista pruning of native species, an on-site visit shall take place with the Conservation Commission to discuss and approve view corridors.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
8:05 P.M. Request for Amended Order of Conditions, Zschock, DEP SE 19-1302, 34 Tomahawk Trail, Map 25, Parcel 017.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. Commissioner LaBranche returned to the hearing room. Shawn Shea of Misty Hill Landscape Design was present for the applicant and explained the request to remove 7 Red Cedar trees and re-plant with 5 new Red Cedars and 5 Bayberries.
Deputy Usowski showed photos of the site and pointed out that the number of trees being removed is less than the number of trees which will be re-planted so that is a good thing. Also, there is a greater chance of survival if new trees are planted than if the existing ones are pruned. She said she had spoken with a representative from the National Park Service and they are in support of what the Commission decides to do.
Mr. Shea assured the Commissioners that he did not wish to de-stabilize the bank in any way and the root systems of the trees would not be removed.
There were no additional comments or discussion and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Ms. Giovinazzo MOVED and Mr. Hoerle SECONDED the Motion to issue an Amended Order of Conditions for DEP SE 19-1302 with the plan of record to become document entitled “Amendment to the Notice of Intent for Ms. Laura Day Zschock, 34 Tomahawk Trail, Eastham, Massachusetts, Reference: Map 25 & Parcel 017" dated 6/15/09, stamped and signed by Dennis Murley and Shawn E. Shea.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
There was a 5-minute intermission at this time.
8:30 P.M. Continuation of Hearing on Notice of Intent filed by William Ladutko, 2705 State Highway, Map 15, Parcel 005.
Chairman Murley announced this hearing. Katelyn Siddell of East Cape Engineering, Inc. was present for the applicant. She distributed revised plans to the Commission and the Commissioners agreed to review them.
Ms. Siddell reviewed this proposal. She said there are currently 4 cottages on the site, not including the 3-bedroom dwelling, which were to be removed. It was originally proposed to replace them with 6 1-bedroom cottages and also included with that would be a new parking area with stormwater management. She said the septic is fine so no upgrade is needed for that.
Ms. Siddell said that at the last meeting the Commission had some concerns. She said that one of the concerns was about regrading within the 50' Buffer Zone and another concern was the egress in the back of the units and the idea of human activity so close to the resource. She said that one of the ways they have tried to omit the egress in the back is to actually remove one of the units so that in the center there will be 4 units to allow for side egress so there will be no rear egress. She said that the only access to the basements will be through the units.
Ms. Siddell said that another change and the reason for distributing the revised plans at the meeting is that the existing 3-bedroom dwelling is to be converted since one of the units has been lost. She said the house will be split up on the interior with minimal work on the outside, but they will be remodeling the 3-bedroom house as well. She said they can now have the elevations higher on the foundations and there will not have to be as much regrading. She said a substantial amount of regrading in the northwest corner has been eliminated and they have tightened up the work limit. She said the work limit as shown was proposed to be a “No Mow” zone once the project is completed and they can put up a permanent barrier such as a split-rail fence. This will allow some Buffer Zone to grow in between the
landscaped area and the resource where right now it is grass right down to the Bordering Vegetated Wetland and there is no Buffer Zone. She said the area is all lawn now and they will not be taking up any resource or habitat.
Ms. Siddell went on to say that she understands that the Commission has an issue with an increase in the 50' so they have they have taken the increase of 1,200 sf. and mitigated that with an increase of a new “No Mow” zone to 2,500 sf. She said that over all within the 100' Buffer they are reducing the amount of building and everything will be re-fitted with gutters and down spouts and all stormwater runoff will be directed to an infiltrator in the northern portion of the property. She said they looked at moving the buildings closer to Route 6 but they ran into some issues with the septic and regrading. She said that as it is now, in order to get the piping in they have to build a retaining wall to cut into that slope. She said they have to be really careful with the driveways. She said they
are pretty dangerous right now and they are trying to make it so that they are not so dangerous in the future, so they are requesting that portions of the drive be paved on the sloped area.
Mr. Murley commented that he thought one of the ideas to get the units closer to the road was to put the parking where the single unit is to the North and where the proposed parking space is would be the road and he said he wondered why that idea was discounted. Ms. Siddell said they did look at that but it would make for a very tight turn from Route 6 and also the applicant want to maintain that single unit on its own.
There was discussion about how much fill would have to be brought in and what the elevation change would be in the rear of the buildings without the rear egress. There will still be a substantial amount of foundation exposed on the back side. Ms. Siddell said she doesn’t see this as any increase in any impact to the resource and if anything she sees it as a benefit with all the stormwater management and regaining the Buffer with the “No Mow” zone.
Deputy Usowski suggested increasing the “No Mow” zone. Commissioner Smith asked why the existing garage will remain and Ms. Siddell said the garage has not been spoken about in discussions about this proposal. Mr. Smith discussed the possibility of removing the garage and moving some of the parking to that area to get it out of the 50'. Discussion followed about possible re-location of the catch basin for stormwater runoff and the enlargement of the “No Mow” zone.
Deputy Usowski said that at this point it is incumbent upon the applicant to prove that this proposal is a betterment to the area. Ms. Siddell said that she truly believes that they have met all the performance standards.
Commissioner Collins said he thinks there is a great deal of work happening on the site and he doesn’t feel that the applicant has fully addressed the Commission’s concerns. Ms. Siddell said she can relate completely to the Commission’s concerns about so much work in the 50' but if this project does not go forward the site will not be improved at all. She said that Eastham does not have any regulation which says there can be no building within the 50' and asked what is it that is being proposed that does not comply with Eastham’s Wetland Bylaw and the State regulations?
Deputy Usowski said that the only thing in the bylaw states that the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that there is no technically demonstrated feasible alternative to the project with less adverse impacts. She said that all the Commission is looking at is if there is any technically demonstrated feasible alternative.
Commissioner Smith discussed some construction alternatives including eliminating full basements from the units, but Ms. Siddell said that all the utilities are located in the basement as the units themselves are only 20'x20', 1-bedroom units.
Chairman Murley said he feels that this proposal is actually a more intensive use of the area and that by keeping all of the existing buildings the level of development in this spot is heavier than what exists, with the parking and roadway and paving all included. He said he feels it is stretching it to say that this proposal would be an improvement and that it is sort of a “lateral” movement.
Ms. Siddell said she would come back to the Commission with more of their questions answered or with a proposal to only renovate the existing single-family dwelling. She said it will not be a tear down and there will be no change in the footprint. She said there is one foundation wall which will need to be shored up due to water damage but there will be no expansion in the footprint.
There was a question from the floor as to whether they could make the garage into a unit and Ms. Siddell said that they looked at that but the applicant wants to keep the garage as an accessory to the single-family dwelling. She said that is another option to look at.
There was another comment from the floor about the number of parking spaces and where the heck they would park if each unit had two cars.
Mr. Hoerle commented that if the applicant were able to decrease the building density he would be able to look at the proposal more favorably.
There were no further comments and Chairman Murley closed this hearing. Mr. Collins MOVED and Mr. Hoerle SECONDED the Motion to indefinitely continue this hearing.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
8:10 P.M. Discussion of Water Quality Study - Sandy Bayne
Chairman Murley introduced Sandy Bayne who he described as the most active of the pond water samplers which she has been doing since 2001. He said that initially the program made a great deal of sense but some towns are not responsive to it any more. He thanked Ms. Bayne for all her hard work in this area.
Ms. Bayne apologized for the recent double booking when the Pond Water Study presentation was held on the same night as the Conservation Commission meeting and the Conservation Commission was displaced from the large meeting room at Town Hall, particularly because she said the Conservation Commission is integral to this process.
Deputy Usowski told Ms. Bayne that all the Commissioners had the summary of the meeting.
Ms. Bayne said that the pond water studies were instigated by the Clean Water Act in the 70s and as a result, the Cape Cod Commission and the Cape Cod National Seashore taught the volunteers how to go out and sample the ponds. She said that one sample per year is analyzed for free by staff from Coastal Systems Program at the School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) under the Massachusetts Estuaries Program but all the other months, April through October, the Seashore analyzes the results.
Ms. Bayne said that the Final Report of April 2009 is available on the Eastham web site. She said ten Eastham Ponds were studied from 2001 - 2006 and all ten ponds covered in the study are impaired to some degree, many by several standards. Six ponds: Great Pond, Herring Pond, Muddy Pond, Depot Pond, Minister Pond and Schoolhouse Pond were selected by the Town for more detailed review by SMAST staff. The detailed review of the six individual ponds shows that shows that all but Muddy Pond have both ecological and regulatory impairments.
The report concludes that five of the six ponds selected for detailed review have impaired water quality based on state surface water regulations thresholds and will require TMDLs(Total Maximum Daily Loads). Review shows that there are three additional ponds that may also be impaired, although more refined analysis is recommended. All the ponds that have been monitored have excessive nutrients and although it is clear that pond water quality will need to be more of a focus in the future, in is not clear how this should be done in a cost-effective way to address the issues in each pond.
The report recommends that the Town consider development of a pond remediation program and that this program be integrated with the on-going pond monitory program which has been key in developing the available information and will continue to be key in providing community feedback on the proposed remedial strategies, a well as measuring the results of remedial efforts.
The report also recommends that the Town begin the implementation of best management practices for shoreline properties. All of these issues will require resources and commitment and SMAST staff would be available to assist the Town in realizing the restoration and protection of Eastham’s pond resources.
Ms. Bayne told the Commissioners that the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen has invited the Water Management Committee to come up with a pond and come up with a proposal for that pond based on Mr. Eichner’s work and formulate a proposal of what work needs to be done to that pond. Ms. Bayne said that both consultants agree that the only near-future solution is Alum treatment but that would only be treating the symptoms and not the source.
Ms. Bayne went on to say that some Committee members would like to go forward with Alum treatment right away and others would to look at the whole picture and then do Alum or decide whether the treatment is necessary or useful.
Ms. Bayne said they would love feedback from the Conservation Commission. She said the Commission is really integrated into that decision and then, in addition to making that decision, to decide whether to go to the Selectmen and then to Town meeting with some kind of proposal for a pond or maybe two, a deep one and a shallow one, for funding.
Ms. Bayne said another option which is always recommended, no matter what else is done, is to institute best management practices. She said this could take the form of education programs or regulations.
Mr. Hoerle said he thinks the study of a pond or two would be very useful. Chairman Murley said the Cape Cod Commission might be helpful in drafting a bylaw, and about the Towns of Brewster and Harwich treatment of Long Pond with Alum
Ms. Bayne said that she might invite Tom Cambareri of the Cape Cod Commission to their next meeting to apeak about Long Pond and ponds in Barnstable.
There was some discussion about pond study and the effects of herbicide use, such as proposed by NStar, which are all tied into each other and how herbicides have long-term effects.
Ms. Bayne thanked the Commission for listening to her presentation and for their continued support.
8:30 P.M. Request for Extension Permit, O’Brien, DEP SE 19-1105, 85 Bay View Drive, Map 13, Parcel 012.
Deputy Usowski explained this request and recommended this Extension.
Mr. Collins MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to grant a three-year Extension for DEP SE 19-1105.
THE VOTE WAS 5 IN FAVOR WITH MR. LABRANCHE ABSTAINING.
MOTION CARRIED.
8:35 P.M. Request for Certificates of Compliance, Cliff Cottage Trust, Andrew Cohn, Trustee, DEP SE 19-488, SE 19-958, SE 19-1198, SE 19-1345, 7 Memory Lane, Map 07, Parcel 501.
Deputy Usowski presented the request for these Certificates of Compliance and reviewed each Order of Conditions for the Commissioners. She said that all projects were completed in compliance with the Orders.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-488. Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-958.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-1198.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. LaBranche MOVED and Ms. Giovinazzo SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-1345.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
8:45 P.M. Request for Certificates of Compliance, Schwartz, DEP SE 19-1092, SE 19-1119, SE 19-1124, 73 & 81 Dyer Prence Road, Map 19, Parcels 087 & 101.
Deputy Usowski presented the request for Certificates of Compliance for the above-referenced Orders of Conditions and informed the Commissioners that all projects were completed in compliance.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-1092.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hoerle MOVED and Mr. Smith SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-1119.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. LaBranche MOVED and Ms. Giovinazzo SECONDED the Motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance for DEP SE 19-1124.
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Deputy Usowski updated the Commissioners on the herbicide spraying by STAR and told them there would be a public hearing on the matter.
There was no further business and Ms. Giovinazzo MOVED to adjourn at approximately
9:00 P.M. Mr. LaBranche SECONDED the Motion
SO VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted.
Kay Stewart-Greeley,
Clerk
cc: Town Administrator Building & Health
Town Clerk Planning Board
Board of Selectmen Library
| 
