Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of August 21, 2008
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Commissioners Present: Ralph Shaw, Jeffrey Cross, Lloyd Allen, John Rogers, Len Pinaud and Robert Anderson
Staff present: Drew McManus (Conservation Agent)
Ralph Shaw called the meeting to order 6:55pm
Post Hearing Agenda:
1) Administrative Approval SE 43-2362 - 97 James Circle
(Concrete walkway only – AOC to follow for additional changes)
The Agent explained that the contractor for the property had approached him about adding in two retaining walls and a set of granite stairs. The Agent explained that it is necessary on the property due to a problem with topsoil erosion on the property’s steep inland bank. The Agent went on to further explain that it would help hold the soil as well as direct the water to the catch basin.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Administratively Approve SE 43-2362.
2) Approval of Minutes from 07/24/2008
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of 07/24/2008.
3) Administrative Approval SE 43-2448 – 112 Wading Place Road
The Agent explained that the Petersons had requested an approval of a bedroom move. The Agent explained that the Petersons would be transferring a bedroom from in the house to the garage. The Agent explained that the house does hold a septic for five bedrooms and that the transfer will not add a bedroom, the other one in the house will no longer be used as a bedroom. The Agent further explained that there will be no exterior disturbance and that the move is totally an interior operation. Commissioner Cross stated that he was under the impression that the garage was not to be used for living quarters, that it was going to be used as a boathouse and wanted to hear abutter comments on the request. The Agent explained that it was never slated to be a boathouse and that the request did not warrant abutter comment. Commissioner
Cross chose to step down on the vote.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Administratively Approve SE 43-2448.
4) Rob Anderson – Cape Cod MX Track Informational Presentation
The Agent explained Mr. Anderson had come to give the Commission some information on his organization and the project they were trying to get up and running. Mr. Anderson stood to address the Commission and stated that in light of the long night he would try to keep his presentation short and to the point. Mr. Anderson explained that his organization, Cape Cod MX Track, is in the process of trying to secure space for an all terrain park for ATV and dirt bike use. Mr. Anderson explained that he understands no one wants it in their back yard but that he feels if it were legal to ride in an area there would be less illegal riding and destruction. Commissioner Shaw asked if in areas where there were legal places to ride violations were down. Mr. Anderson explained that from the research he has completed it does appear it cuts
down on the illegal use. He also explained that since the organization’s inception and commitment to getting an area there have been fewer violations in Barnstable as well. Mr. Anderson explained that his group is made up of mostly families who want to do the right thing and not violate any laws. Mr. Anderson explained that he feels if they are given an area to ride in that the penalties for unlawful use could be stiffened. Commissioner Allen was concerned about the noise level and hearing loss. Mr. Anderson said he understood the concern but that his group is regulated and they do check things like decibel level and proper maintenance of the vehicles. The Agent explained that he had spoken to Mr. Anderson about possibly using the 9 acres of John’s Pond sand pit area. Mr. Anderson explained that that may not be enough room but would seek to have the Town support the park being set up in Bourne. He would be looking for all of the local towns to contribute funds and as
part of that be “allowed” to raise fines as well as even be able to seek criminal penalties for violators. Mr. Anderson explained that the closest locations that this activity is currently legal in is Freetown and the next closest resides in New Hampshire more than 160 miles away. Mr. Anderson explained that he was researching funds that would be available for policing and development and for the Town to help with catching violators. Mr. Anderson said they are already looking at insurance for the area and all the other necessary items that they would need to move forward. Mr. Anderson explained that the organization is also looking to stiffen safety regulations for ATV and dirt bikes to make them safer for families. Mr. Anderson thanked the Commission for their time and stated that he would be back in 30 – 60 days with a proposal. The Commission thanked Mr. Anderson for his presentation.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 p.m. Gerald Segel, AOC – 132 Shore Drive West
(Beach nourishment with maintenance in perpetuity)
Norman Hayes stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Hayes explained that the applicant wishes to change the dates previously approved for his beach nourishment as well as add maintenance in perpetuity to the order. Mr. Hayes explained that the wish to add maintenance in perpetuity was to ensure that the applicant could go in and nourish post storm especially with the kind of weather the Cape has been experiencing as of late. The Agent explained that the applicant was also seeking to remove Special Condition #15, which prohibits mechanized vehicles, use in the area. The Agent explained that in order to nourish the area vehicles would need to be allowed in to deliver it. Commissioner Cross asked why the applicant sought to move the date. Mr. Hayes explained that the whole area is trying to nourish in the same time frame. The Agent
recommended approval and explained that the same standards would apply to this nourishment as others; the applicant will have to submit the results of the sand grain analysis to Conservation.
Motion made, seconded and carried to Approve the Amended Order of Conditions.
7:03 p.m. Cheryl Bovarnick, AOC – 40 Triton Way
(Coastal bank stabilization using fiber rolls)
Tara Marden of the Woods Hole Group stood to represent the applicant. Mrs. Marden explained that the applicant had previously had a permit approved for the fiber rolls in 2004, but it had expired. Mrs. Marden explained that previous fiber rolls had been installed parallel to the bank and are quite effective. Mrs. Martin further explained that the new rolls would be placed longitudinal and will be backfilled and planted over. Mrs. Marden stated that the rolls would be to combat the erosion taking place on the lower portion of the bank; the past project secured more of the top portion. Commissioner Cross questioned whether there were any other materials that could be used in the area; he also asked what the neighbors were doing in terms of erosion controls. Mrs. Marden explained that the neighbors had not taken any action and that other
materials were looked at but that the fiber rolls were more organic and less environmentally invasive than any other solution. The Agent agreed that the fiber rolls are less invasive and asked Mrs. Marden if there was a methodology included in the filing for the installation. Mrs. Marden stated that she believes there is but would provide one if not, all the work will be done by hand on the project.
Motion made, seconded and carried to Approve the Amended Order of Conditions.
7:06 p.m. Scott Taylor, NOI – 139 Popponesset Island Rd
(Reconstruction and maintenance in perpetuity of an existing licensed timber pier with ramp)
The applicant requested a continuance until 09/04/2008 @ 7:36 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/04/08 @ 7:36 p.m.
7:09 p.m. John Mates, RDA – 53 Hoophole Rd
(Replace the existing railroad ties)
The Agent explained that there was a letter in the file for the applicant. Commissioner Pinaud read the letter for the record in which the applicant withdrew his application.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Accept the withdrawal.
7:12 p.m. Michael Welch, AOC – 277 Monomoscoy Rd
(Changes to landscape plan)(Continued from 08/07/2008, 11/15/2007)
Attorney Kevin Kirrane stood to represent the applicant. Attorney Kirrane explained that the previous hearing had been continued when an abutter expressed concern that the changes done by Mr. Welch were causing a run off issue on his property. Attorney Kirrane explained that while pavers were added to the driveway instead of gravel that the driveway meets the Town’s performance standards and is aesthetically pleasing. Attorney Kirrane explained that they had on more than one occasion tried to rectify the differences with the abutter but were unsuccessful. Attorney Kirrane asked that the applicant be allowed to keep the pavers and turned the microphone over to Mr. Jack Landers-Cauley another representative for the applicant. Mr. Landers-Cauley explained that he had photographs to demonstrate the conditions at the property for the
Commission. Mr. Landers-Cauley explained that he had a letter from an inspector from back in 2006 when some grading was done on the property as well as document copies where the project was approved by the Conservation Commission back in 2007. Mr. Landers-Cauley stated that he feels that a hard surface was approved back in the original filing. Mr. Landers-Cauley explained that according to the elevation information taken at the property no run off would run into the abutter, Mr. Camerato’s property. Mr. Landers-Cauley explained that the driveway had been increased in size to accommodate parking of an RV but that it caused no more impact to the area. Mr. Landers-Cauley also explained that they felt the pavers provided better protection for the septic system located under the driveway as well as a better solution for a driveway used year round. Commissioner Cross asked if this filing was an after - the – fact, the Agent stated that it is. The Agent stated that while it is
an after- the –fact he was concerned with four issues. The Agent explained that the first issue he was concerned with was the run off claimed by the abutter. The Agent stated as far as he could tell and according to the paperwork submitted run off was not an issue. The Agent explained that his second concern was the driveway elevation and increase in size. The Agent stated that after Mr. Landers-Cauley explanation about the grade change and the RV he was satisfied with the changes there as the project does meet the performance standards. The Agent explained that his third concern was the building being on a flood zone. The Agent explained his last real concern was in regards to the irrigation system on the property. The Agent explained that after further research he found that under the Town by law irrigation is allowed for three years to help mitigation plantings survive. The Agent explained that while it was after–the–fact the Commission should be
concerned with the adherence to the performance standards and wetlands protection act. Commissioner Cross stated that he felt if the Commission approved the filing that they would surely be sending the message that after–the–facts are okay. The Agent explained that he understood the Commissioners concern but that he felt they should still focus on the performance standards. Commissioner Cross stated that as far as he was concerned he felt uneasy with it and would ask for a continuance until the parties can work it out. Mr. Landers-Cauley stated that he did not feel that a month would accomplish anything as they have been trying for months to get resolution. Commissioner Pinaud asked if more mitigation could be requested as part of the approval, the Agent stated that they could request more. Commissioner Pinaud asked the Agent how the filing would be approved, the Agent explained that it could be approved under the by law. An abutter (Lynn) of 11 Hamblin Pond stood
to address the Commission, she explained that she believes the property is sending pollutants into the pond and that they had no reason or right to increase the driveway and footprint. She stated that she believes it has changed the habitat in the pond and threatens the shellfish flats. She closed by stating that if they are allowed to keep their unauthorized changes where will it stop. Mr. Thomas O’Neill a representative for the Welchs stood to address the Commission. He explained that while the driveway was widened that the overall size of the parking area on the property was decreased. He also wanted to refute the statement that the pavers were secured with clay; he explained that they were pressed into a sand mixture and that water percolated between them. Mr. O’Neill also wanted to refute that the Welchs have been less than good neighbors; he stated that he felt the neighbors were out to all the departments in the Town trying to see what sticks. Mr. O’Neill
stated that he felt that they had met all of the standards and created a beautiful landscape above and beyond the necessary mitigation for the project. Another abutter from 11 Hamblin Pond stood to address the Commission and stated that she felt the Welchs were not good neighbors and had littered and partied on the abutting properties. The Agent asked that the comments be kept to the project at hand and not a discussion on the applicant’s habits. Attorney Peter Harrington stood to represent the abutter, Mr. Camerato. Attorney Harrington explained that he had been practicing law for over 46 years and that he had also had a background in things like permitting and land disputes. He stated that he felt most people set out to do the right thing but that he felt in this case that the decision to do the wrong thing was made. Attorney Harrington stated that the applicant had many well qualified people on the project and still ended up to taking matters into his own hands and
made changes without consulting Conservation and with no regard for the rules or their neighbors. Attorney Harrington presented charts to the Commission; he explained that why they were not technically accurate they were conceptually accurate. The charts reflected what he believes is the huge increase in the size of the project from around 1900 square feet to more than 5600 square feet or what he estimates to be 57% or more increase. Attorney Harrington explained that they also believe that the increase is in mostly impervious materials. Attorney Harrington stated that it is the imperviousness of the materials and the locations causing the run off issues on Mr. Camerato’s property. He stated that while all the data presented would suggest the water runs the other direction, it does not and instead pools on Mr. Camerato’s. Attorney Harrington explained that while the run off could be caused by someone else but that the only property owner that has done any work are the
Welch’s. Attorney Harrington also stated that he believed the Town should take a better look at the property’s run off issues, as they are one of the abutters. Attorney Harrington explained that the run off could harm shellfish habitat in Hamblin pond and the other abutting conservation land. Attorney Harrington explained that they had hired a surveyor as well and that he had copies of the letter to submit to the Commission. Attorney Harrington summarized the letter for the Commission, and the surveyor believed that due to significant grade changes a run off issue was created for abutters. Attorney Harrington asked that the applicant at least be made to remove the pavers. Attorney Harrington closed by explaining that the neighbors all feel that the filing should be rejected based on principle alone, the applicants did not consult Conservation even though they knew full well that they should. Attorney Harrington stated that he felt if the Commission approved the filing
that the neighbors will all do it, and there will be an even bigger problem. Mr. Camerato stood to address the Commission and stated that he had tried to be a good neighbor but that Mr. Welch had turned deaf ears to the problem. Mr. Camerato cited a fence that was to be installed to prevent sand from blowing into his yard; the fence was to be built by Mr. Welch and has yet to be done. Mr. Camerato also stated for the record that some neighbors have threatened retaliation when he goes to improve his property and must file with the Town. Attorney Kirrane stood to readdress the Commission. Attorney Kirrane explained that he wished to refute the size increase claimed by the abutters and explained that is was an increase of only 7% not 57%. Attorney Kirrane explained that he also wanted to explain that the pavers were not set in clay and a maintenance program can be put in place to ensure they are controlling run off correctly. Attorney Kirrane also reiterated that based on all
the research and surveys they had performed the water does not run onto Mr. Camerato’s property. Attorney Kirrane stated that while there is no excuse for not coming back to the Commission that the changes meet the performance standards even according to the Agent. Attorney Kirrane explained that the applicant was willing to do whatever the Commission wanted to maintain the pavers as is. Attorney Kirrane explained that the applicant would add more mitigation and that they had offered may solutions to Mr. Camerato including adding a drain to catch any run off that may be occurring. Attorney Harrington stood to address the drain offer and stated that while they accepted the idea of the drain they did not see how it would be possible. Mr. Landers stood to address the drain offer issue and stated that a drain could be added, that they had looked at adding a French drain. He explained that it would not be easy but can be done even with the septic system existing under the area.
Mr. Camerato stood to readdress the Commission and offered the Commission a trip to his house and a demonstration on where the water flows and asked that the fence/ sand issue be handled. The Agent stated that the sand issue would be addressed. Commissioner Pinaud asked that the motion be made but that the mitigation be a condition of approval. The motion was made and seconded but was not carried due to a two to three vote.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Deny the Amended Order.
7:15 p.m. Francis Reavey, NOI – 42 Cayuga Avenue
(Construct and maintain in perpetuity an existing seasonal dock facility)
The applicant requested a continuance until 09/04/2008 @ 7:33 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/04/2008 @ 7:33 p.m.
7:18 p.m. Janice Semple, RDA – 43 Sakonnet Drive
(Berm replacement)
Doug Semple stood to represent his mother, the applicant. Mr. Semple explained that they wish to replace the berm that currently exists as it has deteriorated due to weather and being used as a bike ramp by the local youth. Mr. Semple explained that they would like to replace it with ½ “ to ¾” riprap and add a half load of washed sand as well. The Agent explained that the project is very necessary and recommended a negative determination. The Agent did request a narrative on how the work would be done; Mr. Semple agreed to supply it. The Commissioners questioned how the destruction by the youths was going to be handled. Mr. Semple explained that they had been talking about adding a split rail fence to deter the berm being used as a bike jump; the Commission asked if that would be part of the filing. The Agent explained
to the Commission and Mr. Semple that it would need to be part of another filing. Mr. Semple stated that he understood and that all of the neighbors had not yet been approached, he stated that they would come back if the neighbors agreed to it.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:21 p.m. Paul Valentine, RDA – Wakeby Pond
(Continued from 07/24/2008)(Replace existing seasonal dock structure)
The applicant requested a two-week continuance until 09/04/2008 @ 7:30 p.m.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/04/2008 @ 7:30 p.m.
7:24 p.m. David Rose, RDA – 184 Rock Landing Rd
(After–fact–shed installation)
Brian Casey stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Casey explained the applicants wish to permit an existing shed on the property. The Agent explained that the new homeowner had inherited the violation, and that they had applied to bring the shed into compliance. The Agent explained that the shed is located approximately 25 – 30 feet from the BVW but is not causing any impact to the area. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:27 p.m. Elizabeth Fulton, AOC – 5 Point Rd
(Landscape changes)(Continued from 08/07/2008)
Wayne Tavares stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Tavares explained that the hearing was previously continued so that the plan could be revised to clearly show the mitigation area and plantings. Mr. Tavares provided the Commission a copy of the new plan and explained that the number of plants, their type and size were all added as well as the areas of mitigation being more clearly delineated. Mr. Tavares explained that the new plan also reflects the Commission’s request last hearing to move back the blue stone on part of the property. The Agent recommended approval of the amended order.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Amended Order.
7:30 p.m. David Keene, AOC – 63 James Circle
(Add 30 feet to the work limit, 30 feet to the wall on one side, eliminate wood stairs and replace with same materials as wall)(Continued from 08/07/2008)
John Slavinsky stood to represent the applicant’s contractor Mr. Mike Cannata. Mr. Slavinsky explained that the hearing was previously continued so that the plan could be revised. Mr. Slavinsky explained that the plan needed to include the plant locations, types and number to be used. The Agent explained that all the necessary information was provided on the plan and that he recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Amended Order of Conditions.
7:33 p.m. Lawrence Bacon, RDA – 56 Waterway
(Remove and replace trees within the same location)
Mr. Lawrence Bacon stood to represent himself. Mr. Bacon explained his wish to remove a few trees and replace them with like trees. Mr. Bacon explained that he is approximately 70 feet from the creek and the trees are about 9.5 feet from his deck. The Agent explained that he is going to be going on site with Davey Tree to determine the health of another tree. Mr. Bacon explained that he would not be disturbing any vegetation, the Agent agreed and recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:36 p.m. Maushop Village Trust, NOI – 358 Shore Drive
(Maintenance in perpetuity, post imminent storm approach and extension of beach nourishment window)
The Agent explained that Mr. Norman Hayes had left a note before exiting the hearing requesting a two-week continuance for the applicant.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 09/04/2008 @ 7:39 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Brown
Board Secretary
| 
