Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of September 4, 2008
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Commissioners Present: John Fitzsimmons, Ralph Shaw, Jeffrey Cross, Lloyd Allen, John Rogers, Cass Costa and Robert Anderson
Staff present: Drew McManus (Conservation Agent), Liz Leidhold (Asst. Conservation Agent) and Melissa Brown (Board Secretary)
John Fitzsimmons called the meeting to order 6:55pm
Post Hearing Agenda:
1) Administrative Approval SE 43-1645 – Popponesset Beach
The Agent turned the microphone over to the applicant to explain their request. Mrs. Virginia Landry came forward to address the Commission and explain her request. Mrs. Landry explained that she was looking to have the time frame for the installation of the snow fence and beach grass extended. The Agent explained that the fence previously existed and was taken down so that beach nourishment could be performed on the beach. Commissioner Cross asked if there were any legal ramifications, if approved. The Agent explained that there are no legal concerns.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Administratively Approve request for
SE 43-1645.
2) Approval of Minutes from 08/07/2008
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of 08/07/2008.
3) New Certified Vernal Pool
The Assistant Agent explained that a new vernal pool has been certified in Mashpee. The Assistant Agent explained that the pool in located at Noisy Hole and is actually on property owned by the Division of Fish and Wildlife.
4) John Johansen Memorial Plaque
The Agent explained that he has been working on the memorial but as he was working on it thought of a new idea. He explained that he thought it might be nice to name the St. Vincent property after Mr. Johansen and erect the plaque there. The Agent also explained that he had offers of support/donations from people for the memorial. The Commissioners asked if all the parties had been contacted that might have an interest in the property’s naming. The Agent explained that he had not contacted anyone yet but would make sure they were on board before going forward with it.
The Commissioners agreed that it would be a fitting memorial and told the Agent to keep them updated.
5) C.O.C – 79 Pickerel Cove
Mr. Trudeau stood to address the Assistant Agent and Commission. The Assistant Agent explained that this was the project that the photos were supplied from a few hearings ago. The Commission stated that they remembered and asked the homeowner if the additional 10A floats had been removed. The homeowner and Agent explained that the floats had been removed and that the proper permit is now in place for the float that exists. The homeowner Mr. Trudeau also explained that he had removed the extra 2 feet from the platform so that it now conforms to the original plans submitted and that the shed can be removed, if necessary, as it is only a knock down shed and is not dug in. The Agent explained that he had received a narrative on the project per his request and that the width of the project was lessened, as well as addressing all
of the Harbormaster concerns. The Agent stated that the floats are to be stored upland in the off-season and would like a letter attesting to where they will be stored. Mr. Trudeau stated that he would provide that. The Agent stated that the project was now in compliance.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 p.m. Frederick Blythe, NOI – 228 Wading Place
(Pier, dock)(Continued from 01/10/08)
The Agent explained that the applicant had requested a continuance until 03/05/09 @ 7:00 p.m. The Commission questioned how many continuances have been granted on the application. The Agent explained it was approximately five but explained that it was due to pending litigation stemming from the original Orders of Condition.
Motion made, seconded and carried for a continuance until 03/05/09 @ 7:00 p.m.
7:03 p.m. The Cotuit Bay Condominiums, NOI – 418 Quinaquisset Avenue
(Vista pruning)(Continued from 05/29/08)
The Agent explained that the applicants have asked to withdraw the application. The Agent explained that the vista pruning guidelines were really created for single-family homes and not for large properties like the Condominium complex. The applicants thought that each owner would receive a 50 foot corridor and after many attempts to compromise so that everyone benefitted from the one 50 foot-space allowed, the applicants have chosen to withdraw the application.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Accept the Withdrawal.
7:06 p.m. Jeff Murad, NOI – 19 Keel Way
(Vista pruning)(Continued from 08/07/08)
The applicant requested a two-week continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:03 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:03 p.m.
7:09 p.m. Chilton Development, NOI – 166 Waterway
(Demolish and rebuild new single family home with driveway, landscaping, retaining walls, pool, patio, spa, walkways, irrigation, re-grading, denitrifying septic system, mitigation plantings and associated appurtenances)(Continued from 08/07/08)
The applicant requested a two-week continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:18 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:18 p.m.
7:12 p.m. Christopher Joe, RDA – 43 Monahansett Road
(Plant trees and shrubs)
The applicant, Mr. Christopher Joe stood to address the Commission. Mr. Joe described his wish to plant some trees and shrubs on his property. Mr. Joe explained that he had included a list called Addendum A in his application of species he found to be native and would be choosing from that list with his Horticulturist based on price and availability. Mr. Joe explained that he would be back for another filing at the next hearing to add a patio to the yard. Mr. Joe explained that the plantings would ultimately border the patio. The Agent explained that the property had been before the Commission before for installation of rain barrels and a few other items. The Agent explained that the area does slope to the wetlands but that the plantings will help shore up the area. The Agent recommended a negative determination. The Commission questioned
the plan and lack of planting quantities noted on it. The Agent explained that the quantities were necessary for mitigation plans. This area was previously disturbed and that the final planting list will be submitted to him for approval. Commissioner Allen questioned how the land is oriented; Mr. Joe explained that from his best guess he would say southwesterly. Commissioner Allen also explained that some of the plantings on the Addendum, while native, would not be compatible in the slanted area. Commissioner Allen specifically mentioned that Trumpet Vine should not be used due to its invasive spreading nature. Mr. Joe thanked Commissioner Allen for the input and stated that he would strike the Trumpet Vine from the list.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:15 Geoffrey Wall, RDA – 146 Ninigret Avenue
(Rebuild wall with native fieldstone)
Mr. Geoffrey Wall stood to address the Commission. Mr. Wall described his wish to rebuild a stonewall as the previous permit had lapsed on the project. The Agent explained that it is an existing brick wall within close proximity to John’s Pond. The Agent explained that the materials need to be stored upland for the project, not on the Pond’s bank or other side of the street. The Agent also reminded Mr. Wall to retain the proper permits from the building department for any section over 4 feet tall. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:18 Leann Tibets, RDA – 123 Old Brickyard Road
(Upgrade septic system)
Michael Labute stood to represent Mr. John Doyle, the contractor for Ms. Tibets. Mr. Labute explained that the Board of Health had approved the application; Commissioner Fitzsimmons read the Board of Health approval comment for the record. The Agent explained that the project is for a typical septic upgrade and that the only item he would like added is a siltation barrier and he would speak to Mr. Doyle about it as well. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and carried unanimously for a Negative Determination.
7:21 p.m. Richard Cohen, NOI – 401 Monomoscoy Road
(Construct a new single family home with associated appurtenances)
Michael Borselli of Falmouth Engineering stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Borselli described the applicants wish to construct a new single family home on the property now owned by the Cook’s, Mr. Cohen is a potential buyer of the property. Mr. Borselli explained that some of the Commission might remember the property for an order of conditions issued for a dock that was permitted but has not yet been installed. Mr. Borselli explained that the property is located on Monomoscoy and in close proximity to Little River. Mr. Borselli explained that the property is surrounded by homes and is in a densely populated area. Mr. Borselli explained that is was a challenge to design the home to take advantage of the area like the neighbors have already done, to get the best view and property arrangement. He explained that the property is
referred to as Lot 94 and is 26,000 square feet with a width of only 70 feet. Mr. Borselli explained that the property is located in the flood zone, bordered by wetlands and is land subject to coastal storm flow. The Agent and Assistant Agent questioned why the project was so large, why all the areas were to be cleared. Mr. Borselli explained that the applicant would like the project big so that the yard would be low maintenance and that they felt the project took into account all of the necessary standards and was well thought out. Mr. Borselli stated that the project was no larger than the other projects in the area and was actually smaller than one of the abutters. The Commission questioned whether the plan meets the required amount of unaltered space. The Agent read the bylaw from Chapter 172 Reg. 25 that stated the standards for unaltered space (total square footage of alteration); he read that lots over 20,000 square feet require 30% to remain unaltered or native. Mr.
Borselli explained that they were still waiting to hear from Natural Heritage on the application; Commissioner Fitzsimmons asked if a continuance was in order and the issues to be raised at the next hearing. The Agent explained that Natural Heritage had submitted comments when the dock filing had come before the Commission and they declared it a no take so they would probably find the same for this, as it is the same area under consideration. The Agent also explained that he had told Mr. Borselli that he should come to the hearing so that he could receive input to be better prepared for the next hearing. The Commission agreed to let him receive feedback even though a continuance was in order. An abutter, Mr. Bob Webster (Casey Realty Trust) stood to address the Commission. Mr. Webster explained that he would like to support the project but felt that the 33% of unaltered area quoted by Mr. Borselli was inaccurate. Mr. Webster asked whether the resource area (salt marsh) counted
towards the figure. Mr. Webster also stated that he felt that there would be a large decrease in the wildlife value of the area if the project were allowed to stay as large as proposed. Mr. Webster closed by explaining that while the project is not as big as some in the area it is 7 feet closer to the water than the others. Mr. Bob Sampson, another abutter came forward to question the accuracy of the 33% as well and stated that he did not feel Mr. Cohen needed boat storage, as he does not have a place for it on his property. Mr. Sampson also questioned whether the property falls in the River Front Act; the Agent explained that it does not fall under the act. Mr. Michael Talbot of Michael Talbot Associates stood to address the Commission and explained that some of the abutters both present and not to represent their concerns on the application had retained him. Mr. Talbot passed around photos to demonstrate the area and that there would be no trees left once the project was
completed. Mr. Talbot explained that on one photo where the red line existed that from there landward no trees would remain after construction. Mr. Talbot explained that the lot is currently naturally vegetated and also questioned how the alteration calculation is figured. Mr. Talbot questioned the delineations, lack thereof on the plan. Mr. Talbot explained that he felt that a significant ridge was not represented on the plan and that it needs to be studied, as he believes there is a coastal bank present as well. Mr. Talbot explained that if the coastal bank is found to be there that it would push the 50-foot buffer back. Mr. Talbot explained that the last concern was the size of the driveway and location of utilities. Mr. Talbot stated that he felt the utilities could be located in the driveway area. Mr. Talbot explained that the size of the project would call for the destruction of the last large wildlife corridor that exists in the area. Mr. Talbot explained that they are
looking for a larger landscape plan with more mitigation and better flood controls. Mr. Borselli asked the Commission if he could reread the notes he had taken to restate the concerns he felt were expressed. The Commission stated that they would restate their concerns. Mr. Borselli thanked them. Commissioner Costa recapped the Commission’s concerns. Commissioner Costa reiterated the need for the bank to be studied further to see if it is indeed coastal or not, the need for the plan to be scaled back, reconfigured to save more of the existing landscape/trees. Commissioner Costa also explained that the calculation and whether the BVW can be used as part of it needs to be clarified. Commissioner Fitzsimmons added that he would like to see as Commissioner Allen stated a reduced size to show some regard for the environment. The Agent explained that he would clarify the calculation figure specs and that the Commission also had to take into consideration the dock filing (fixed
pier). The Agent explained that the pier would have to be worked into the calculation because it will alter the property and factor into the 33%. The Commission questioned the vista pruning noted on the plan. The Agent explained that he had spoken to Mr. Borselli about the noted vista pruning; the Agent stated that he told Mr. Borsell that the notes indicating the vista corridor did not represent an acceptable vista-pruning plan and would need to be redone. Mr. Borselli stated that he understood and would either correct the plan and state the vista pruning to guidelines or remove it from the project all-together. Mr. Borselli thanked the Commission for allowing for the input to be received and asked if he could be provided a copy of the pictures from Mr. Talbot. Mr. Talbot agreed to let Mr. Borselli take a copy of the photos. Mr. Borselli asked for a two-week continuance so that the concerns raised could be addressed.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:27 p.m.
7:24 p.m. Marie Marshall, RDA – 11 Crow Road
(Replace block wall)
Mrs. Marie Marshall stood to address the Commission. Mrs. Marshall described her wish to replace a deteriorated block wall on the property. Mrs. Marshall explained that the wall is falling down and that her husband had dug out the sand to prepare to replace it. The Agent explained that work had begun on the area, which is located on John’s Pond and he had issued a stop work order until they could come before the Commission. The Agent explained that the wall poses a safety hazard and is completely necessary to shore up the area. The Agent further explained that the area will be backfilled and vegetated as part of the project. Mrs. Marshall apologized for the work being started; she stated that they did not know they had to come before the Commission. The Commission asked the height of the wall; Mrs. Marshall stated that it is 5-foot
tall. The Commission asked if the building department had been contacted, the Agent and Mrs. Marshall stated that they had been contacted. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:27 p.m. Edward Govoni, AOC – 12 Quinapen Road
(Extend fence in backyard, extend driveway, add 4-foot wide concrete walk and landscaping)
A representative for Ed Govoni stood to address the Commission. He explained that he was filling in for the representative on the project as he had a family emergency. The representative explained that the green cards had been previously handed in and that the applicant wishes to extend the driveway and add a few more items as listed on the application. The Assistant Agent questioned what plan was being used and wanted to clarify the mitigation that would occur. The representative could not speak to the questions raised by the Assistant Agent. The Agent explained that they would need to research what was said originally and explained to the Commission that the whole area was not disturbed for the original project; some was previously disturbed. The Commission and the Agents agreed that there needed to be a two-week continuance so that
everyone could be on the same page and proper representation could be present.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 08/18/08 @ 7:30 p.m.
7:30 p.m. Paul Valentine, RDA – Wakeby Pond
(Continued from 08/21/2008)(Replace existing seasonal dock structure)
The applicant requested a two-week continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:24 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:24 p.m.
7:33 p.m. Francis Reavey, NOI – 42 Cayuga Avenue
(Construct and maintain in perpetuity an existing seasonal dock facility)(Continued from 08/21/08)
The applicant requested a two-week continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:09 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:09 p.m.
7:36 p.m. Scott Taylor, NOI – 139 Popponesset Island Rd
(Reconstruction and maintenance in perpetuity of an existing licensed timber pier with ramp)
Thomas McGrath stood to represent the applicant. Mr. McGrath described the applicants wish to replace the existing pier and ramp with a new pier and float. Mr. McGrath explained that the pier would have the same alignment but turned to a T shape and would be pushed further out into deeper waters and would include float stops as well. Mr. McGrath explained that the new plan was a significant improvement over the existing pier. The Agent explained that he had one issue with the plan and that was the size of the float. The Agent explained that the float is bigger than allowed in the bylaws; he asked if the applicant had proof of grandfather to keep the size as the old pier/ramp is larger as well than allowed. Mr. McGrath stated that the float was interim approved back in 1993 for the size as it is now; he asked what year qualified as
grandfathered. The Agent explained that the early 1970’s would be considered grandfathered. The Commission and Agent recommended a continuance so that the float could be redrawn and brought into compliance or proof of grandfathering presented. Mr. McGrath agreed and requested a two-week continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:33 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:33 p.m.
7:42 p.m. Kimberly Cramer, RDA – 250 Fells Pond Road
(Demolish and rebuild new single family home, pool, septic system, landscaping, retaining walls and associated appurtenances)
Doug Stefano stood to represent the applicant. Commissioner Fitzsimmons read for the record that the Board of Health approved the application. Mr. Stefano explained that he had met with the Z.B.A and Building Department already on the project and was unaware at first that the application had to come before the Commission. Mr. Stefano explained that upon further research he found the bylaw that required an application to be filed since the project falls within the 100-foot setback to the 100-year flood plan. The Agent explained that a very small portion of the project falls within Conservation jurisdiction. The Agent explained that the project does not cause any harm to the resource area and recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:45 p.m. Keyspan Energy Delivery, RDA – Nathan Ellis Highway and Algonquin Ave.
(Install gas main)
Brad Malo from Coastal Engineering Co. stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Malo described the applicants wish to install a 550-foot lineal gas main to be connected to an existing parallel main. Mr. Malo explained that there would be no grade changes and that the project is necessary to upgrade the system. Mr. Malo explained that the work would be done as soon as possible to not interfere with the vernal pool-breeding season. The Agent explained that a siltation barrier would need to be installed; Mr. Malo explained that they are proposing a staked hay bale siltation barrier as well as using silt sack fabric under the work. The Assistant Agent asked whether the project would open and close the same day, Mr. Malo stated that it would. The Commission questioned the main’s pressure and what the main would be constructed of. Mr. Malo
explained that the main’s pressure is approximately 60 pounds and would be constructed of plastic. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:48 p.m. John McCarthy, RDA – 5 Squaws Lane
(After-the-fact additional stone driveway with cobble stone apron on Shore Drive)
The Agent explained that the applicant requested a two-week continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:12 p.m. as their representative from Cape and Islands Engineering was unable to attend.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:12 p.m.
7:51 p.m. Carol Kelley, AOC – 174 Captains Row
(Construct deck and patio)
Stephen Lake from Bennett Engineering stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Lake described the applicants wish to add to the original order of conditions a 28’ x 10’ deck and a concrete patio where a deck was previously. Mr. Lake explained that the property is still under construction and that they will be back for more changes to the original order for landscaping and bank repair. The Agent explained that he has not been able to meet on site with the representative to discuss the particulars. The Agent explained that would have liked to see it all on one complete plan including the landscaping and bank repair. Mr. Lake stated that he had thought they could not be combined after speaking with the Agent as the bank repair and landscaping would be outside the original work area. The Agent explained that he must have misunderstood
Mr. Lake or vice versa but that Mr. Lake had two choices he could ask for a continuance and combine them or go forward with this piece and come back for the rest. The Agent explained that there would be need for mitigation for the deck and patio as well as the other changes to be proposed. Mr. Lake agreed to a two-week continuance. The Agent and Assistant Agent also stated that the siltation fence on the property needed to be redone. The applicant, Mr. Kelley, stated from the audience that the fence had been redone within the last week. The Agent stated that he would try and schedule time with Mr. Lake to go over the project on site.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/18/08 @ 7:36 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Brown
Board Secretary
| 
