Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of June 26, 2008
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Commissioners Present: John Fitzsimmons, Ralph Shaw, Jeff Cross, Lloyd Allen, John Rogers, and Cass Costa
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
Public Comment:
1) Mary Wheatley stood to speak on her own behalf regarding an ongoing issue with her neighbor Mr. Sloan. She explained that Mr. Sloan had been in front of the Commission 11 months ago for extensive construction done on his property. The construction she explained changed the grade on Mr. Sloan property and created a run off issue for her. Mr. Sloan assured Mrs. Wheatley that a berm would be installed to help mitigate the run off. Mrs. Wheatley stated that not a single thing has been done by Mr. Sloan and that the run off onto her property was getting worse. She asked the Commission if the berm decision was still valid and enforceable. She also asked if a completion date could be set for Mr. Sloan to have the berm done by. Commissioner Cross said communication with Mr. Sloan had been exhausted; Mrs.
Wheatley explained that she had contacted him many times to no avail. The Agent explained that the Sloan application was an RDA and required no conditions so the Conservation department’s enforcement scope was limited. The Agent explained that there would have to be an adverse effect on the resource area to be able to enforce the berm issue further. The Agent further explained that the resource area is not being affected The Agent explained to Mrs. Wheatley that he would continue to contact Mr. Sloan in an attempt to rectify the situation. Commissioner Costa recommended sending Mr. Sloan a “Good Neighbor” letter from the Commission. Commissioner Fitzsimmons agreed that a letter should be sent as well as follow up by the Agent. Commissioner Fitzsimmons also asked that the Agent keep the Commission up to date on the matter. The Agent agreed.
Post Hearing Agenda:
1) Administrative Approval SE 43-2407: 7 Ocean Bluff Dr (Robert Spencer)
(Cass Costa recuses herself)
The Agent explained that this project was previously approved for a carriage house on the property. The Agent explained that the applicant has requested the approval for the carriage house to be decreased in size and set back further on the property. The Agent stated that the decrease in size and increase in setback moves it further from the resource area and lessens the impact caused by its installation.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Administratively Approve SE 43-2407.
2) Approve Meeting Minutes from 05/29/2008
Commissioner Fitzsimmons asked that one line be revised to specify who was speaking in the public comment section in regards to Mr. Bill M.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of 05/29/2008.
3) Save Popponessett Bay Association - Alfred White
Alfred White of the Save Popponessett Bay Association stood to address the Commission. Mr. White explained that he had compiled the information the Commission had requested at the last hearing. He had delivered a site plan and Conservation had pictures of the area that the fencing would be installed in. Mr. White explained that he had been asked about reseeding the area by the Commission at the last hearing and upon further investigation he found that the permits for the area would need to rewritten/ reapplied for so reseeding at this time is not a feasible option. He also reminded the Commission that part of the project will be the installation of signage dissuading people from swimming in the channel. The Agent recommended approval of the project as it will help shore up the spit beach area as well as provide much needed
signage to help dissuade swimmers.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the Symbolic Fencing and Signage project for the Save Popponessett Bay Association.
4) Meeting – June 20, 2008
Commissioner Fitzsimmons and the Agent recapped the meetings for the Commissioners that were not in attendance. Commission Fitzsimmons stated that he felt it went very well and was highly productive. Commissioner Fitzsimmons explained that from the information he has seen it now appears that both Cranberry and Fish habitat restoration may be possible.
5) St. Vincent Property – Quit Claim Deed signing
The Agent passed out the Quit Claim Deed paperwork for the Commissioners’ signatures. The Commissioners signed and the paperwork was notarized so that it could be sent to the appropriate parties for further completion
Hearing Agenda
7:00 p.m. Peter Costill, NOI – 37 Monomoscoy Rd West
(Continued 05/29/2008)(Boathouse, ramp, deck)
John Slavinsky of Cape and Island Engineering stood to represent the applicant. He explained that the lot Mr. Costill would like to build his boathouse on was deemed an unbuildable lot in 1999. Mr. Slavinsky cited that the Town bylaws are written with leeway in regards to unbuildable lots allowing for boathouses, sheds etc. Mr. Slavinsky explained that the area was previously cleared and leads to a coastal bank. He further explained to the Commission that there is a paper road that runs through the property called Overland Road. Mr. Slavinsky described the boathouse construction citing that it will have no foundation and will sit on sona tubes. He explained that the application includes an 8’ x 16’ ramp and decks for chaise lounges. He explained that as mitigation the applicant is willing to add filter fabric to the
old wall area and backfill to help ease erosion, as well as adding plantings to the area. The Agent explained that the project is within 20 feet of the ACEC line, and he had concerns about clearing anymore in the area. The Agent asked why the boathouse could not be minimized/ scaled to fit within the already cleared area. The Agent also explained that he saw no need for decks on the boathouse especially when they would create more of a negative impact on the resource area. The Agent also questioned the location of the ramp, as it would lead directly to the edge of the coastal bank; he was concerned that boats would be dragged over the bank. The Assistant Agent added that she felt that the decks would require excessive clearing. John Slavinsky stated that there would be no boats dragged over the bank and that the ramp was purely for carrying kayaks and such up to store in the boathouse. The Commission questioned the setbacks required. The Agent asked Mr. Slavinsky if moving it was
an option for the applicant. Mr. Slavinsky stated that he would approach the applicant with the request. Mr. Slavinsky asked for a two-week continuance so that he could meet with the applicant.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 07/10/2008 @ 7:15 p.m.
7:03 Kathleen and Michael Bowler, NOI – 37 Birch Way
(Continued from 06/12/08)(Pier, float)
Don Monroe of Coastal Engineering stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Monroe described the applicants wish to install a pier and float. He explained that the hearing was continued multiple times while they waited for the results of the Freshwater Mussel survey they were required by Natural Heritage to do and Natural Heritages final approval. Mr. Monroe explained that the comments and approval as back and that Conservation did receive a copy of their approval letter. Mr. Monroe further explained that Natural Heritages letter approves the relocation of the mussels in the pier/float area. The Agent asked Mr. Monroe if the mussels had yet been moved, Mr. Monroe stated that they had not yet been moved and did not need to be until the construction begins. The Agent explained that he would like a copy of the survey findings as well as he will be
writing all of Natural Heritage comments into the Order of Conditions. The Agent stated that he does expect monitoring of the mussels survival and updates on their condition. The Agent recommended approval.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:06 p.m. Susan Wornick and Debra Anastos, RDA – 15 Deans Hollow Rd
(Construct a 10’ x 25’ patio)
Susan Wornick stood to represent herself and the other applicant. She described their wish to install a
10’ x 25’ blue stone patio and explained that she had submitted a hand sketch of the proposed patio. The Agent explained that he had tried to research what was there before; he could not find an order that mandated natural vegetation in the proposed location. The Agent explained that he was told that a vegetable garden was tried in the location but that it had failed, probably due to the salt exposure. The Agent read from CMR 172 and highlighted that such a project can be approved if there would be no adverse affect on the coastal dune. The Commission questioned what type of material would be used; Ms. Wornick explained that it would be blue stone pavers. The Commission also questioned the possibility of problems with run off. The Agent explained that similar projects had been allowed before. The Agent asked Ms. Wornick if she
could use hard packed sand and leave space between the pavers to help with any run off as well. The Agent also asked that the applicants plant beach grass near the fence to help with the runoff and stability of the area. Ms. Wornick explained that they would be happy to add the beach grass as part of the project. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:09 p.m. Robert White, O’Leary Family Trust, NOI – 15 Tuspaquin Road
(Seasonal pier and float with maintenance in perpetuity)(Continued from 06/12/2008)
Commissioner Fitzsimmons read a letter from Lori Corsi of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The letter stated that she felt the matter should be forwarded on to Town Council. John Slavinsky of Cape and Islands Engineering stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Slavinsky explained that he researched the area and found that the groin that the float/pier will be located on is a licensed groin. He explained that he would be meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply for a special permit though he feels one is not necessary in this case. Mr. Slavinsky stated that the pier and float are 100% Natural Heritage compliant and that the pier/float meet all Conservation performance standards. The Agent explained that the project does meet the performance standards. The Commission explained that they would not be able to approve the project without
hearing what the Zoning Board of Appeals has to say. Mr. Slavinsky agreed to a two-week continuance but asked that he be allowed to say that it meets the performance standards. The Agent and Commission okayed Mr. Slavinsky stating that the pier/float meet the performance standards without approving the application.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 07/10/2008 @ 7:18 p.m.
7:12 p.m. Adam Hayes, RDA - 112 Uncle Percy’s Road
(Construct wooden deck and upgrade existing septic system)
Donald MacDonald stood to represent the applicant. Commission Fitzsimmons read a letter from the Board of Health stating that they approved a variance to include three bedrooms. The representative for the applicant explained that he did not know much about the project. The Agent explained that the project is located in isolated land subject to flooding (across the street). The Agent also explained that the area is turf grass and that the project will cause very little disturbance. The Agent stated that any area disturbed would be filled in. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:15 p.m. David Rose, NOI – 184 Rock Landing Road
(Continued from 06/12/2008)()
The Agent explained that the application is multifaceted and that there are pieces of information missing, including a locust map and an SE#. The Agent explained that the applicant had requested a two-week continuance.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 07/10/2008 @ 7:09 p.m.
7:18 p.m. Joseph and Jean Gennaco, RDA – 108 Uncle Percy’s Road
(Construct a new addition, relocate existing septic, remove front deck and replace with stone patio, and landscaping.)(Continued from 06/12/2008)
The Agent explained that the Gennaco’s were unable to get representation to the meeting and had requested a two-week continuance.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 07/10/2008 @7:12 p.m.
7:21 p.m. Robert and Nancy Farrelly, AOC – 25 Wading Place Rd
(Removal of Special Condition #20 of the Order of Conditions)(Cass Costa recuses herself)
Tara Marden of the Woods Hole Group stood to represent the applicants. Mrs. Marden explained that the applicants wish was to get Special Condition #20 removed from the original Order of Conditions. Mrs. Marden stated that the Order of Conditions is rather ambiguous and that Special Condition #20 called for beach nourishment as mitigation for construction access. Mrs. Marden further explained that the applicants had fulfilled their obligation recently adding all of the sand that would have been added over the six years or so since the Order of Conditions was created. She explained that it was a show of good faith and to get their C.O.C from the Conservation department. Mrs. Marden explained that after examining the entire file on this application that it does not appear that the applicants have to continue to nourish indefinitely. Mrs. Marden
did cite that Special Condition #18 and #19 do state that they are to be done in perpitutuiy specifically but that #20 is not mentioned. The Agent agreed that the Order of Conditions is ambiguous and that the wording is vague. The Agent questioned how long the applicants should have to provide beach nourishment for a one-time construction access. Christine Fairneny, Board of Director from the Popponessett Beach Association, stood to comment as the property the nourishment is going on is the Associations. Ms. Fairneny read from July 2002 Conservation meeting minutes that the nourishment was stated as 300 cubic yards applied as necessary annually. The Agent stated that those minutes were more pertaining to the 7:33 hearing for the same applicants. Ms. Fairneny questioned if that was right because of the SE#, Mrs. Marden explained that the same SE# was issued for both filings. Ms. Fairneny said she had not understood that before and that she would like to go back to her Board with
that information. Mrs. Marden showed the plan to the Commission and pointed out that there is no beach nourishment noted on this site on the plan itself, it is noted on the 31 Starboard Lane portion but not the Wading Place portion. Commissioner Fitzsimmons questioned why if no perpetuity was mentioned that the Conservation Department made the applicants nourish. Was it a mistake? The Agent explained that it was not a mistake so much as the vague wording in the Order of Conditions was purely a judgment call. Mrs. Marden explained that the applicants and the Agent and Ms. Farineny had all come to an agreement that the applicants would nourish because of the vagueness and as a good faith measure as mentioned earlier. Mr. Adam Crenzi stepped forward to comment on whether the nourishment was a mistake or not. Mr. Crenzi explained that the nourishment was very much needed in that section of the beach and is a vast improvement over what was there previously. Mr. James Kelley stepped
forward to comment as well. Mr. Kelley stated that he felt this matter should be continued until more facts could be gathered. He stated that he had seen nothing in the file that said that the Popponessett Beach Association had given permission for access over their land and that he feels there were deals behind the scenes recently to go forward with the nourishment. Ms. Fairneny stood and stated that she was working with both Conservation and the Woods Hole Group and was aware of the project; she explained that they were delighted with the work as it enhanced the beach. Ms. Fairneny again stated that she would like to go to the Board before any decision is made, as they would like the nourishment continued. Commissioner Cross asked whether there could be a compromise to make everyone happy and whether this could be worked out amongst the parties involved. Mrs. Marden asked why the applicants should have to keep nourishing a beach because they used it once for construction access.
Commissioner Fitzsimmons read the Order of Conditions Special Condition #20 for the record and added that he felt there is the impression or implication that it was to be indefinitely as part of the deal. Mrs. Marden stated that she felt the Commission back when this was decided carbon copied the Order of Conditions for the two sights and that Wading Place Road should not require continued beach nourishment. Commissioners Cross and Fitzsimmons stated that they felt the hearing needed to be continued so all the parties could research and more facts could be obtained. Mrs. Marden stated that she felt they had time to get their information together.
Motion made, seconded and carried for a continuance until 07/10/2008 @7:21 p.m.
The vote was 3/2 for the continuance.
7:24 p.m. New Seabury Properties, RDA – 108 Shore Drive West
(Fill in a small depression)(Cass Costa recuses herself)
Jack Vaccaro stood to represent the applicants. Mr. Vaccaro described the applicants wish to fill in a small depression that was created from using it for beach nourishment staging. Mr. Vaccaro went on to explain that the applicants would like to clear the invasives from the area and replant some native vegetation as well as filling in the depression. The Agent explained it is located near the coastal bank but that he has no concerns about the project. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:27 p.m. Evan and Susan Dangel, NOI – 762 Cotuit Road
The Agent explained that the applicants had requested a two-week continuance.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously for a continuance until 07/10/2008 @ 7:06 p.m.
7:30 p.m. Summersea Road Realty Trust, RDA – 110 Summersea Road
(Removal of 7 trees)
Donna Damalas stood to represent herself. Ms. Damalas described her wish to remove 7 pitch pine trees from the property. She explained that the pitch pines are tall and dead and pose a real danger to her house. The Agent explained that originally the application was for the removal of 9 trees but that during the onsite it was determined that only 7 really needed to be removed. The Agent agreed that the pitch pines were a danger to the house. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:33 p.m. Robert and Nancy Farrelly, AOC – 31 Starboard Lane
(Amend the beach nourishment requirements) (Cass Costa recuses herself)
Tara Marden of the Woods Hole Group stood to represent the applicants. She explained that this hearing was the same SE# as the 7:21 p.m. hearing. Mrs. Marden explained that the applicants were seeking only to amend the beach nourishment condition to state that it is only necessary for construction mitigation, post storm mitigation and to protect the structural integrity of the wall as needed. Ms. Fairneny stood to ask again that the matter be continued so that she could bring the information to the Board. Mr. Kelley stood to state that the wall area that this is in regards to be only 19 feet from the house, and the wall is sunken and needs nourishment. Ms. Farineny mentioned that the original Order of Conditions calls for the area to
meet the 2002 profile and that the nourishment is meant to keep that at that profile level. Mrs. Marden explained that the area is dynamic and they would have to be down there continuously to keep it at the profile. The Agent agreed that how long are the applicants responsible for the nourishment in an environment that is so dynamic. The Commissioners stated that they felt that the matter needed to be continued so the facts could be sorted out properly.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 07/10/2008 @ 7:27 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Brown
Board Secretary
| 
