MASHPEE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Minutes of February 16, 2006
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall Meeting Room 3
Commissioners present: Jack Fitzsimmons, Chairman, Lloyd Allen, Cass Costa, Jeffrey Cross and Ralph Shaw.
Staff present: Steven Solbo, Agent, Drew McManus, Assistant Agent, and Frances Wise, Board Secretary
Jack Fitzsimmons, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.
Public Comment:
1. Proposed Regulation 13, Chapter 172.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adopt Regulation 13, Chapter 172.
2. Proposed Regulation 14, Chapter 172.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the revised Regulation 14, Chapter 172.
3. Proposed Regulation 15, Chapter 172.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adopt Regulation 15, Chapter 172.
4. Regulation 1 and 2, Chapter 172. Steve said Bob did not make any substantive changes, but just deleted some useless language and corrected some punctuation, so no approval was required.
Non-Hearing Agenda
Old Business:
1. AFCEE fee. Further to Steve’s report on this subject at the last meeting, he said that AFCEE’s payment to the Town of approximately $137,000 was not transferred to Conservation because it was left off the Town Meeting agenda by the Finance Department because Bob had not given justification for same. Steve said he will be sure to give justification to the Finance Department for the next Town meeting.
2. AFCEE meeting on Quashnet Bog Feasibility Study. Drew said he sat in on a meeting last week. Basically they just went over potential mitigation options, channel maintenance and monitoring, evaluation of criteria such as fish habitat, surface water, ground water, stakeholders’ interest, and determining costs.
Steve said it’s the kickoff to the study that will hopefully decide what we do with those bogs.
It was a meeting to identify all stakeholders and the preliminary ideas of what’s going on. Jack asked if there’s any outlook for how long the treatment will be needed. Steve said he thinks they are non-detecting every location except for two, and within those two sites, they think they can eliminate it within the next five years. The problem is that the pumps and bubblers create a lot of cold, oxygen rich water which feeds the trout fishery out there, and once AFCEE moves out, who will pay for running those pumps to keep the fish alive. He said Bill Fisher brought up a good point – namely, if there is a settlement when the bogs go out of production, we could set up a trust fund to run the pumps with those moneys. It shouldn’t cost too much to run them.
3. Gerry Graves appeal. Steve said this is the house on stilts which we approved down by Dutchman’s Brook. The abutter appealed because he said that the house in effect was destabilizing the coastal bank by the foundation that was being put in, but there is no foundation being put in. He also said the coastal bank was not delineated correctly. We’re waiting to hear from DEP and their superceding order.
4. MACC transportation plans. Drew is handling this.
5. New uniforms. Steve and Drew were wearing the new uniforms.
6. Bob Sherman. Steve said that Bob has officially left. He wished him the best and said he wouldn’t be where he is now without him.
New Business:
1. Approval of minutes for 1/5/06 and 1/19/06.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes for 1/5/06 and 1/19/06.
2. RFAA SE 43-2400. Steve described some changes required by Natural Heritage, and he recommended approval.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve RFAA SE 43-2400.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 p.m., Joy Hibsher, 29 Pond Circle (continued from 1/19/06). John Slavinsky represented the applicant and requested a continuation because of issues raised by Natural Heritage.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuation to March 16th at 7:00 p.m., at the request of the applicant.
7:05 p.m., John Donovan, 31 James Circle (continued from 1/19/06). John Slavinsky represented the applicant. Steve said this had been continued because we were waiting to hear from Natural Heritage, and they have now said there is no adverse impact.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this NOI.
7:10 p.m., Mark Thompson, 40 Little Neck Lane (change parking area, transplant shrubs, and new steps to front entrance). Cass stepped down for this hearing. Steve said this is an after-the-fact filing. Michael Schofield represented the applicant and described the plan. Jack asked if some of the trees taken down are within our jurisdiction. Steve said yes, and if we want to get very technical about it, the mitigation calculations should have been run. He said the mitigation formula for an enforcement situation would call for 6-10 shrubs based on the diameter of the trees that were cut down. Mr. Schofield agreed to this.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this RDA with the condition that the Commission receive an acceptable plan for nine plants of three different species.
7:15 p.m., Jenny McCafferey, 7 Crow Road (upgrade existing septic system). Jack Vaccaro represented the applicant. Jack said the Health Department has insufficient information.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuation to March 2nd at 7:25 p.m., at the request of the applicant.
7:20 p.m., James Quigley, 384 Monomoscoy Road (install another drywell to existing leaching facility). John Slavinsky represented the applicant and described the plan. Steve said if the applicant ever wants to do some interior decorating that includes partitioning, he highly suggested that he come to us first because we do have regulations that he must abide by. The only problem we would have would be the addition of a bedroom, which would trigger the denitrification clause in the nitrogen regulation of our by-law. Mr. Quigley said he has a denitrifying system.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this RDA.
7:25 p.m., Kevin Donahue, 53 Whippoorwill Circle (construct a 16’ x 28’ garage connected to house). Ron Landry represented the applicant and described the plan.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this RDA.
7:30 p.m., James Bertino, 37 Pond Circle (add 4’ by 40’ wooden walkway). John Slavinsky represented the applicant and described the plan.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this AOC.
7:35 p.m., Mark Rogers, 87 Hooppole Road (continued from 2/2/06). Jack Vaccaro represented the applicant and described the plan. This is a four-acre property which runs about 1,000 ft. along John’s Pond. The original house will be demolished and the new one set further back from the wetlands, keeping the work limits a minimum of 50 ft. back from the pond. The applicants are requesting two vista windows. Natural Heritage expressed concern about the tide water mucket and the insect species habitat close to the pond, and they felt that a Conservation restriction would be necessary for this project to be approved. The applicants would like to convert what’s now a lawn to a meadow that would provide a variety of habitat.
Steve said we’re going to get a lot of wildlife habitat out of this project not due to our By-law. The one question he has is the vista corridors. We allow 50 ft. in this case because there’s over 1,000 ft. of frontage. One quarter of where the house now is will be wide open, and the precedent of the Commission has been that if there is a view already, we’re not going to give another one. The view that is going to be established by the removal of the existing residence is going to be above and beyond what is allowed now by the By-law. There will be nothing in that area for more than 50 ft. He therefore asked for the deletion of the other corridor.
Mr. Vaccaro asked if there might be some compromise on the second corridor. Steve said no, and reiterated that once the existing house is gone, there will be a good 65 to 70 ft. swath that has only one or two trees in it.
Mrs. Rogers said when they bought the property, it had a house that was not up to code. They will be demolishing.it and building a new home much further back from the water than it needs to be. They are bettering the property, and she feels they should not be penalized for that.
Steve said the only compromise he can even begin to think about is after the existing house is demolished, to fill in that area with larger trees, and then opening up the other corridor. Mr. Vaccaro said the two proposed corridors represent less then 20% of the frontage. They total about 200 ft. with a little over 1,000 ft. of frontage.
Mr. Vaccaro pointed out a split rail fence on the plan that the applicants may want to put in at a later date, and they wanted it to have it built into this plan. Steve said this would be no problem.
Mrs. Rogers asked if it would be possible that rather than having a second corridor, to do a little selective cutting -- a little hole here, a little hole there -- since the lot is exceptionally large. Steve said that the Commission understands her position and that this is a tough situation for the Commission, because we’re here to enforce the regulations that were promulgated. He said that area is buffer zone, but he thinks this is the type of situation where we might have to look at our regulations again, and where the owners have an extreme amount of frontage, they would have the ability to prune the 20%. If we changed the regulations, they could come back and request the vista pruning.
Cass suggested that since the lot is so large, they could spin off a parcel, put it in a trust, and have it considered as another lot. Mrs. Rogers feels that the property is not sub-dividable.
Steve said his last comment was that the Commission can always waive a regulation or make changes to it based on their ruling. He thought it in the Commission’s best interest to wait on this issue and maybe look again at the numbers.
Lloyd and Jeff were in favor of allowing the two corridors, since no one else will ever have such a large frontage. The regulations allow 20% of frontage for corridors, but not to exceed 50 ft. Mr. Vaccaro said their request was for each corridor to be 100 ft. It was proposed that we allow two windows 50 ft. wide at the top, to which the applicants agreed.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this NOI with the stipulation that the two windows are 50 ft. wide at the top.
7:40 p.m., Robert Spencer, 7 Ocean Bluff Drive (remove wall and construct and maintain a carriage house with landscaping). Cass stepped down for this hearing. John Slavinsky represented the applicant. Jack said that the Board of Health has insufficient information on the plan. Mr. Slavinsky said there is no living space in the project, so no filing was needed with the Board of Health, and he described the project. Steve said he is concerned about the adverse affect on the bank. Jack read a letter from Barbara Casey, 5 Ocean Bluff Drive, stating her objections to the project.
Attorney Peter Lyons, representing Barbara Casey, said their first concern was what the project will do to the coastal bank and the effect it will have on the flow down from that area into the pond. This is a very limited area, and if they start building on it, the density will become quite thick there, and they won’t have much to help with erosion.
Dr. Greg Moore, wetland ecologist and scientist, pointed out that there are at least four, if not five, resource areas on the site, so we’re not talking about buffer zones, but impacts of resource areas. He left copies of his presentation with the members.
Jack explained that we have sometimes had contentious issues in the past where people have come in with lengthy arguments against them, and we’ve said we really don’t have enough time to digest the arguments at the time of the meeting in order to make an intelligent judgment. He invited anyone to make comments, but said we’ll probably have to have a continuation.
William Duffey, 125 Shore Drive West, echoed most of the comments made this evening and presented a list of 12 people who are opposed to this proposed construction. Two of the twelve are direct abutters, and ten are not within an abutter’s range. Jack noted that the list did not state their objections to the project. Mr. Duffey said he can have each of these people write a letter to the Board to state their own objection.
Dr. Moore showed photos of the site to the members. Steve said the bank meets the definition of a coastal bank by both the Wetlands Protection Act and the By-law. One of the provisions in the performance standards under the Wetlands Protection Act is that any structure shall not jeopardize the stabilization of the bank. He clearly thinks that any structure, especially of this size, will have a severe impact on the stabilization of that bank.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to March 16th at 7:05 p.m., at the request of the applicant.
7:45 p.m., George Domolky, 26 Spoondrift Circle (4’ by 4’ step with two 8”x4’ footings). Drew described the project.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this RDA.
7:50 p.m., Ralph Faia, 27 James Circle (remove existing retaining wall and construct a concrete wall; remove existing patio, add frost wall and construct concrete patio; install sono tubes for upper deck; and regrade and replace existing lawn). John Slavinsky represented the applicant and requested a continuation.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to March 2nd at 7:30 p.m., at the request of the applicant.
7:55 p.m., Charles Trenoweth, 66 Massasoit Avenue (vista pruning). Drew described the project.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve this RDA.
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Frances Wise
| 
