Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of July 24, 2008
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Commissioners Present: John Fitzsimmons, Jeff Cross, Lloyd Allen, John Rogers and Len Pinaud
Staff present: Elizabeth Leidhold (Asst. Conservation Agent) and Melissa Brown (Board Secretary)
John Fitzsimmons called the meeting to order 6:55pm
Post Hearing Agenda:
1) E.C.M Binder –
The Assistant Agent explained that the Conservation Department had received the binder she had passed around from E.C.M. The Assistant Agent explained that E.C.M was offering a proposal to help with the Town’s beach, South Cape Beach, persistent erosion issue. The Assistant Agent explained that E.C.M is proposing to donate all the supplies/materials and technical support free to the Town. Commissioner Cross asked how it worked. Does it trap the sand? The Assistant Agent stated that it did trap the sand and rebuild a dune behind the eroding spots to help keep more sand in place as far as she understood it thus far. The Assistant Agent went on to explain that the Town D.P.W would be responsible for installation of the product, and the Commission would be tasked with getting the project through the permitting
process. Commissioner Fitzsimmons asked the Assistant Agent if it seemed technically feasible and asked if by permitting she meant that the Commission would have to file the Notice of Intent. The Assistant Agent stated that Commissioner Fitzsimmons was correct about the Notice of Intent and that it does look technically feasible. The Assistant Agent explained that she would like to gather more information and would update the Commission with any findings.
2) Signatures for Reappointment –
The Assistant Agent explained that she had been contacted by the Town Clerk and reminded her those Commissioners up for reappointment in 2008 need to sign the Town Clerk’s appointment book.
3) Certificate of Compliance 79 Pickerel Cove Rd. –
The Assistant Agent explained that Conservation had been approached by John Slavinsky on behalf of his client to obtain a Certificate of Compliance. The Assistant Agent explained that the Commission had previously permitted a walkway that ended in a stairway down to the water. The Assistant Agent showed the Commissioners photos of the area and explained that the homeowner had put in many 10A floats and added a platform instead of a stairway at the end. The Commissioners questioned why the homeowner had not stuck to the approved plan and stated that there was no way a Certificate of Compliance could be issued until the issues were addressed, and Perry Ellis was consulted about the number of floats. The Commission and Assistant Agent agreed that an enforcement order should be sent to the homeowner as well as an
invitation to the next hearing.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 p.m. Peter Costill, NOI – 37 Monomoscoy Road West
(Cont. from 7/10/2008) (Boathouse, ramp, deck, driveway, utilities)
John Slavinsky of Cape and Islands Engineering stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Slavinsky explained that the hearing had been continued due to the location of the boathouse. Mr. Slavinsky stated that the Agent wanted to see if the boathouse could be moved so that it was only in the area that had been previously cleared. Mr. Slavinsky also explained that the decks that were previously included were removed and that the driveway mentioned is existing. Mr. Slavinsky explained that the boathouse has been reduced by 4 feet, from 16 feet to 12 feet, so that it is now 99% in the previously cleared area. Mr. Slavinsky explained that the new plan also includes a walkway that stops 5 feet from the property line down to the beach. The Commission questioned who owned the beach and “paper” road (Overland Rd) on the plan. Mr.
Slavinsky explained that the applicant does not currently own the property but that it is on the market, and they are attempting to purchase it. Commissioner Fitzsimmons asked why the applicant would add a walkway when the current owner could say that Mr. Costill is not allowed access, in essence a walkway to nowhere. Mr. Slavinsky agreed and stated that there would not be a problem in removing the walkway from the project as they could add it again in the future should the applicant be able to purchase the land. The Assistant Agent explained that the new location/reduction in size is much better but that there needs to be more erosion controls added, specifically to the beach side and near the ACEC line. Commissioner Pinaud questioned the setbacks for the boathouse as the plan showed only a 5-foot setback. Mr. Slavinsky explained that he had gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals informally and they will have to allow the applicant a variance to get it approved. He stated that they
had asked him to add a double row of hay bales. Mr. Slavinsky explained that he will have to go back to them after this hearing, and they will make their official determination. The Commission asked about Natural Heritage and any D.E.P comments received. The Assistant Agent explained that Natural Heritage’s comments were that the proposed project did not result in a “take” so as far as they are concerned would not be an issue. The Assistant Agent stated that the D.E.P questioned only if the boathouse needed to be made of flood resistant construction. Mr. Slavinsky stated that he did not feel that boathouses were subject to those requirements and had contacted the D.E.P about it. The Assistant Agent asked about the construction methodology and access. Mr. Slavinsky stated that the construction would be done by bobcat and access would be from the road. He explained that the foundation would be made of sono tubes and not dug like for other
structures. The Commission questioned tree removal on the property based on the pictures. Mr. Slavinsky stated that there would be no tree removal at all. The Assistant Agent stated that the Order of Conditions would be written to include a condition that no boats are to be dragged over the bank at all. Mr. Slavinsky agreed and stated that the boat currently on the beach that was dragged over the bank was not the applicants, as they understand that it is not allowed.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue with the condition that no trees be removed and no boats be dragged over the bank.
7:03 Michael Chiasson, RDA – 41 Lakeview Dr.
(Enclose area beneath deck)
Barbara Frappier of Warwick and Associates stood to represent the applicant. Ms. Frappier described the applicants wish to enclose an area beneath his deck for storage. Ms. Frappier explained that it would be made of wooden walls with no windows and a door, possibly even double doors and used to store the applicant’s things. The Assistant Agent asked how many sono tubes would be involved; Ms. Frappier stated that she was not sure. The Assistant Agent asked that a siltation barrier be installed between the land and work area. Ms. Frappier stated that they would add a siltation fence on the landward side of the existing concrete wall.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:06 p.m. William Daniels, RDA – 4 Ned Besse Road
(Install a split rail fence and plant hostas along fence)
Mr. Daniels stood to represent himself. Mr. Daniels described his wish to install a split rail fence for safety reasons and add some plantings along it as mitigation. Mr. Daniels stated that he feels the neighbor’s dog is a nuisance and is a danger to those on his property. He cited an event where the dog broke free from his chain and chased Mr. Daniels all around his yard. The Asst. Agent and Mr. Daniels explained that Mr. Daniels had started work on the fence but had stopped to consult Conservation after being told by a neighbor that he needed to do so. The Assistant Agent explained that the fence does not appear to impact the bank, and she would recommend a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:09 p.m. George Turner, RDA – 35 Timberland Drive
(Upgrade an existing septic system)
Peter McEntee of Engineering Works stood to represent the applicant. Commissioner Fitzsimmons read a statement from the Board of Health that the application was incomplete. The Assistant Agent explained that there was an update late in the afternoon and that the application was approved for a three-bedroom dwelling. Mr. McEntee explained that the upgrade would consist of a pump chamber, and it would pump the waste out past the 100-foot setback. Commissioner Cross questioned whether there would be any redundancy on the pump. Mr. McEntee stated that there would be only one pump with no redundancy.
The Assistant Agent explained that she would like to see more erosion controls on the project. Mr. McEntee pointed out the erosion controls are already in place on the project and stated that they would be adding more erosion controls near the trenching as needed. The Assistant Agent explained that there were no issues with the septic upgrade but that she had stumbled upon a catch basin on the property and was wondering if Mr. McEntee knew what it was used for. Mr. McEntee explained that he had not seen the catch basin on the property survey and asked where it was located and how visible it was. The Assistant Agent explained that it was located near the driveway and that the pipe was easily seen. The Commissioners questioned who was responsible for the catch basin and asked if Conservation had a permit on file for it. The Assistant Agent
explained that there was no permit and she did not know if the homeowner or Town was responsible for it. The Commission and Assistant Agent asked Mr. McEntee if he would investigate and get back to them with any information obtained. Mr. McEntee agreed to obtain any information that he could and report it back to the Conservation department. The Assistant Agent recommended a negative determination on the septic upgrade.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:12 p.m. Evan Dangel, NOI – 762 Cotuit Road
(Continued from 07/10/2008)(Demolish and rebuild a single family home with decks, driveway, landscaping and embankment restoration, stairway replacement and associated appurtenances)
John Slavinsky stood to represent the applicant and explained that it was continued from the last hearing due to the house location. The Agent had asked if the house could be located farther back on the property, farther away from the resource area. Mr. Slavinsky explained that he had been out a few times to the property with the Assistant Agent, and it was not possible to move it any farther back than the 4 feet proposed previously. Mr. Slavinsky further explained that the inability to relocate the house is based on the slope and severe grade change on the property as witnessed by the Assistant Agent. Mr. Slavinsky reiterated that the stairway currently in place would be removed and replaced with an elevated stairway and that rain gardens would be installed with the project. Mr. Slavinsky also explained that the debris as noted at
the last hearing would be removed from the embankment. Commissioner Fitzsimmons read a letter from the Board of Health that the septic system had passed inspection. The Assistant Agent questioned the tree removal mentioned at the last hearing. Michael Talbot stood to represent the applicant and address the question. He stated that he did feel that the trees needed to be removed and were a danger to the dwelling. Mr. Talbot explained that under past Conservation Agents he was allowed to determine dangerous trees and remove them once that determination was made. The Assistant Agent explained that the removal of the trees does not appear to be crucial to the safety of the dwelling and that removal would compromise the banks stabilization. Mr. Talbot stated that he was under the impression that any tree found to be dangerous and not allowed to be removed that causes damage to a dwelling is a liability to the Town. He stated that the Town has been made aware and would be liable if
something happened to the applicant’s property. The Commission asked if Natural Heritage had commented yet on the application and the Assistant Agent stated that they had not yet responded. The Assistant Agent stated that she did email them in an attempt to solicit their comments and did not hear back prior to the hearing. The Commission stated that they would like to continue the hearing until the comments can be received, Mr. Slavinsky agreed to a two-week continuance.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 08/07/2008 @ 7:33 p.m.
7:15 p.m. Paul Valentine, RDA – Wakeby Pond
(Replace existing seasonal dock structure)
The Assistant Agent explained that the applicant had requested a two-week continuance.
Motion made, seconded and carried for a continuance until 08/07/2008 @ 7:30 p.m.
7:18 p.m. William Zammer, NOI – 6 Beach Road
(Demolish and reconstruct new single family home with patio, driveway, retaining wall, landscaping, utilities and associated appurtenances)
John Slavinsky stood to represent the applicant. Commissioner Fitzsimmons read a letter from the Board of Health stating that the application was approved for a two-bedroom system. Mr. Slavinsky described the applicants wish to demolish and rebuild a two-bedroom house with a new Title V system and a 2-foot retaining wall. The Assistant Agent asked Mr. Slavinsky about the revisions that were done to the plan, the new plan omitting some previously shown dunes. Mr. Slavinsky explained that he had consulted Mr. Michael Talbot on the dunes and was told that they were not real dunes but rather just moving sand with pavement below. Mr. Talbot stood to represent the applicant and further explain the landscape plan for the project. Mr. Talbot explained that the landscaping will include removal of turf and creation of meadows, ornamental
plantings and trees. Mr. Talbot stated that the new landscape plan is a model conservation landscape plan creating habitat on the property. Commissioner Fitzsimmons questioned how many cedars would be removed, he felt that they looked like pretty substantial trees and wondered what they would be replaced with. Mr. Talbot explained that the cedars would be removed but replaced with mature cedars after construction ends. Mr. Zammer stood to address the Commission and stated that he would try to reuse the cedars but if he could not planned on giving them to a tree company to sell as mature plants. Commissioner Fitzsimmons questioned the number of cedars to be replaced as it was not noted on the plan. Mr. Talbot explained that he did not have a set number but had included nine total on the plan. The Commission asked that the number be noted on the plan and initialed, added to the order of conditions and noted in the minutes. Mr. Talbot wrote in the number nine on the plan and
initialed it. The Assistant Agent stated that there were no issues with the plan but that a D.E.P number had not been issued yet for the application.
Motion made, seconded and carried to Close and Issue pending the arrival of a D.E.P number, and with the condition that no less than 9 Cedars are to be planted to replace the existing mature trees.
Public Hearing on the Future of the Quashnet Bogs
Commissioner Fitzsimmons opened the public hearing by reading the public announcement as printed in the Enterprise. He invited the audience to come forth and make presentations to the Commission. Mr. Michael Forde, President of the John Pond Estates Association, stood to address the Commission. Mr. Forde explained that he has been president of the association for 25 years and has seen the conditions at the bogs deteriorate to the current levels. Mr. Forde read off a list of Town employees he has met over the years and stated that he had met most due to the water level issues around the bogs whether good or bad. Mr. Forde explained that he was told many times over the years that the Town could not control the grower as agricultural law sets precedence. Mr. Forde stated that he was told the grower could take water and resources as they see fit
and that it is out of the Town’s jurisdiction, and the grower barely even has to justify his action to anyone. Mr. Forde turned the microphone over to Mr. John Harris also from John’s Pond Estates explaining that they were asked to have prepared statements as to not repeat any issues. Mr. Harris explained that he has been a resident of the Estates for 32 years and had prepared a letter that he will be reading from to address inaccuracies from past hearing presentations on the issue especially in the comments made by Mr. LaFleur. A copy of the letter was given to each of the Commissioners. Mr. Harris explained that he felt that the health of the fish and raising of cranberries are not compatible as far as he can see from the many years he has witnessed. He explained that the fish were not healthy when the berries were being harvested the last time. Mr. Harris questioned the validity of the profit time frame given by Mr. LaFleur; Mr. LaFleur said that it would be 2 to 3
years until the Town would see a profit when Mr. Harris stated that he felt it would be more like the agreement struck with the Town of Falmouth. Mr. Harris brought up the problem of the water levels and board monitoring. He explained that the boards in the past have been removed with no rhyme or reason and now are being removed by others for their own gain/enjoyment. Mr. Harris explained that the homeowners have taken the monitoring on themselves due to flooding and water level issues. He cited an incident two weeks ago with a renter removing boards to give themselves more of a beach.
He explained that he had reported it to the police and Harbormaster/Conservation Agent but has not seen the person confronted yet. He stated that he understood it is an additional duty for everyone, the three Herring Wardens (Harbormaster, Conservation Agent and Shellfish Warden), and they could not possibly get there everyday. He also stated that he does not expect that the police would walk the 150 feet to the water or to know when and how to replace the boards after getting a report about them being out. Mr. Harris explained that the homeowners had worked out a board schedule with Perry Ellis to try and get a handle on the water levels and destruction of the area. Mr. Harris read from the letter about the dangers of the ever-shrinking water levels and that it is causing harm to boaters and wildlife. Mr. Harris stated that the
Quashnet bogs need to be restored not ignored and that the area could be restored to a valuable fish habitat. Mr. Harris thanked the Commission, and Commissioner Fitzsimmons thanked him for the thoroughness with which he covered the issues in the letter and his presentation. Mr. Forde readdressed the Commission in defense of the Herring Wardens, and the recent incident stating that he has not been able to ascertain the name of the offending party and that he felt they were doing a good job reacting to the issue. Mr. Forde explained that he felt Mr. LaFleur was a lobbyist for the Cranberry growers and that Mr. LaFleur spoke a lot about “coulds” and not about what would happen. Commissioner Fitzsimmons explained that Mr. LaFleur is not a lobbyist but that he works for the Cranberry Growers Association. Mr. Forde reiterated a point brought up by Mr. Harris about who would monitor the bogs and the trust involved on behalf of the Town. Mr. Forde quoted Mr. LaFleur in regards
to the price per acre as $11,200 and explained that multiplied by ten acres that bring the Town about $112,000 far less than the amount of property taxes paid by the 42 John Ponds Estate residents. Kathleen Elia stood to address the Commission and stated that she had seen the destruction caused by the shrinking water level and safety issues Mr. Harris spoke of. Mrs. Elia explained that she had to rescue a family after their boat ran aground in the water, and a member of the boat was injured. Mr. Phil Elia stood as well to address the Commission and stated that he did not understand how the Cranberry growers, and allies could make all these statements with no scientific basis for them. He stated that if he attempted to do the same he would as a private citizen have to do shellfish surveys and have scientific data to support his request.
Commissioner Fitzsimmons asked if anyone else wanted to speak, no one else came forth, and he thanked everyone for their participation and comments. He explained that the Commission would be taking it all into consideration and would deliberate and make a decision at the next hearing in two weeks.
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Brown
Board Secretary
| 
