Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of May 15, 2008
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Commissioners Present: John Fitzsimmons, Ralph Shaw, Jeff Cross, Lloyd Allen, John Rogers and Len Pinaud
Staff present: Drew McManus (Conservation Agent), Elizabeth Leidhold (Asst. Conservation Agent) and Melissa Brown (Board Secretary)
John Fitzsimmons called the meeting to order 6:55pm
Public Comment:
1) Mr. James Kelley of 30 Overlook Knoll stood to address the Commission in regards to the Order of Conditions on file for 31 Starboard Lane. (Beach nourishment) Mr. Kelley stated that he feels that they (his son and himself) were misled by the Town. The Agent explained that he had asked that the Kelleys appear on May 29th to discuss this matter so that the facts could be determined, and all the information be gathered. The Commission requested that due to the time constraints of the hearing the Kelleys do appear on May 29th. The Commission also requested that the Kelleys bring a list of issues/complaints for the Commission to review at that time.
Post Hearing Agenda:
1) Administrative Approval SE 43-2518: New Seabury Properties LLC
(Staging Area next to Tidewatch condos)
The Agent explained that the representative for the project had to leave and will be back to present the information on May 29th.
2) Administrative Approval SE 43-2476: New Seabury Properties LLC
(Florence 78 Triton Way)
The Agent explained that the representative for the project had to leave and will be back to present
the information on May 29th.
3) Approve Meeting Minutes from 04/17/2008.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of 04/17/2008.
4) Wildfire Survey Index Grant Meeting: May 19, 2008
The Agent informed the Commission that he will be meeting with the Cape Cod Cooperative Extension about the Wildfire Survey Index. The Agent reminded the Commission that he had applied for the grant money to have the index performed. The meeting will take place on May 19th at 2 p.m. and will be held at the Town Hall. The Agent extended an invitation to any of the Commissioners wishing to attend to hear about the program and grant.
5) Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge Partnership Meeting: May 20, 2008
The Agent informed the Commission that he will be meeting with the partners of the Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge Partnership. The meeting will be on May 20, 2008, at 10 AM in the Main Conference Room of Mashpee Town Hall.
6) Administrative Approval SE 43-2487: 106 Waterway
The Agent handed the floor over to the representative for the applicant. Heather Wright of Heather Wright Landscaping stood to represent Mr. John Mitchell of 106 Waterway. Mr. Mitchell wishes to modify and repair patio from what was approved in the Order of Conditions.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant Administrative Approval.
7) Quashnet Bogs Presentation – Steve Hurley
The Agent introduced Mr. Hurley to the Commission and switched seating so that Mr. Hurley could run his PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Hurley addressed the Commission and stated that he was glad to be back to present to a full house. Mr. Hurley explained that he has been intimately involved with the Quashnet Bogs since 1990 as part of his position at the Massachusetts Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Hurley described his work to restore the native Brook Trout population to not only the Quashnet Bogs but many bodies of water in Mashpee and Falmouth. Mr. Hurley gave a little background on the trout themselves. The reason why the trout historically have done so well in the Mashpee area in particular is the cold spring fed streams. The end of the line geology of Mashpee is that it was most likely an outwash plain (a valley
pitted plain). This geologically makeup is the reason that cold water up wells in places like the Quashnet bogs. This cold water is a great habitat for the trout and other species like the Mosquito Fish (Gambusia Affinis) and is home to spotted turtles as well. He explained that he feels that there is no way to both restore the bogs to trout habitat and farm cranberries. Mr. Hurley explained that they would be competing for water and that the two call for totally different environments. The water necessary for flooding the cranberries would choke out the fish. The trees necessary for shading the fish from predators and the sun would kill off the cranberries. He went on to further explain that the trout have been virtually unaffected by the E.D.B and are original stock they believe from way back. The genetic makeup of the current resident brook trout are not the same as the trout stocked from the hatchery. Mr. Hurley informed the Commission that there are many programs for Federal
and State funding available to restore Brook Trout habitat. He asked that they review the Town of Plymouth’s website to reference their project where they received over 1 million dollars to restore Eel River as such. Commissioner Pinaud asked Mr. Hurley if the two truly could not be combined in his opinion and Mr. Hurley said it could only be done if the two can be kept completely separate. He did not see any way in which that could be accomplished in the Quashnet bogs. Mr. Hurley in closing asked for the Commission’s support in restoring the native trout and recreation area at the Quashnet bogs. He stated that while cranberries could be profitable down the road he felt the fish would pay off immediately. The Commissioners and Agents thanked Mr. Hurley for coming and complimented his through presentation.
8) General discussion on fate of Quashnet Bogs
The Commission decided to discuss their feelings so far on the fate of the bogs and information presented so far. Commissioner Pinaud requested a trip to Plymouth or more information on their project and funding sources. Commissioner Cross requested more time to think about how he will vote on the issue. The Commissioners requested more facts on the funding sources and availability. The Commissioners were provided a copy of the contract the Town of Falmouth has with their cranberry grower to get an idea of what the Town could be facing for revenue and expenses should they decide to grow cranberries. The Agent reminded the Commissioners that the Commission was tasked with preservation and conservation of the Town lands. He stated that if it came down to an issue with funds and seeking to make sure there would be enough
revenue to support the department, he wanted them to understand that there are plenty of funds available through different programs and he did not want money to be the driving force either way. He explained that he would continue to apply for grants and programs to fund necessary projects. The Commission decided to wait and conduct the official vote on May 29, 2008.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to continue without vote until
May 29, 2008.
9) Tom Fudala – Open Space: Adopted Goals & Objectives
The Agent explained to the Commissioners that he had left a copy of the Town’s Open Space Adopted Goals and Objectives in their mailboxes a few weeks ago and that Tom Fudala ask that the Commission vote to approve it. The Agent further explained that the issue is time sensitive as it is necessary so that the Self Help Grant application for the Shield’s property can be submitted. The Commissioners reviewed the documents and decided to vote on it.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Open Space: Adopted Goals and Objectives memorandum.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 p.m. Chris D’Antonio, RDA – 17 Pontiac Road
(Mitigation plantings and to install a vinyl stockade fence)
Chris D’Antonio stood to represent himself and describe his application. He explained that the project had been previously approved back in 2005 to include the fence. Mr. D’Antonio explained that he had never added the fence and now wants to. He also explained that he would like to add some mitigative plantings. The area had been previously cleared and he acknowledged that his property is in the flood zone. The Agent stated that he had no issues with the plan but had noticed that some of the original plantings from the 2005 plan had died and that there needs to be a 90% survival rate the plantings as a part of this application. The Agent and Commission asked Mr. D’Antonio if the fence would be located parallel with the current post rail and rail fence owned by the Town. Mr. D’Antonio explained that it would run
parallel to the fence but be about 5 – 10’ off of it. The Agent questioned whether there would be any vegetation removal with the installation, Mr. D’Antonio did state that there would be some removal (approx. 3 – 4 ft) to create a path for him to install the fence. The Agent explained that he would help address some planting concerns Mr. D’Antonio had and make sure the installation complies with the Town performance standards.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously for a Negative Determination.
7:03 Lou Segliowski, RDA – 14 Bowsprit Point
(Replace 2 red cedars, replace landscape timber wall with a new wall around pool, remove cobblestones from existing rotary and replace with new wall)
The Agent explained that the Commission would be requesting a continuance due to a printing problem at the Enterprise. The Agent went on to explain that the hearing notice/ public notices were not printed in time thus creating the need for the continuance until the notice can be properly advertised.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 05/29/2008 @ 7:09 p.m.
7:06 p.m. James DeVincent, AOC – 122 Old Brickyard Road
(Landscaping and extension of the existing patio)
The Agent explained that the Commission would be requesting a continuance due to a printing problem at the Enterprise. The Agent went on to explain that the hearing notice/ public notices were not printed in time thus creating the need for the continuance until the notice can be properly advertised.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 05/29/2008 @ 7:12 p.m.
7:09 p.m. Martin Solomon, RDA – 122 Popponessett Island Rd
(Demolish old float system and replace within same footprint, replace gangway)
The Agent explained that the Commission would be requesting a continuance due to a printing problem at the Enterprise. The Agent went on to explain that the hearing notice/ public notices were not printed in time thus creating the need for the continuance until the notice can be properly advertised.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 05/29/2008 @ 7:15 p.m.
7:12 p.m. Christopher Peacock, NOI – 7 Crow Rd
(Cont. from 04/17/2008)(Install seasonal dock, a retaining wall and vista pruning)
Jack Vaccaro of Vaccaro Environmental Consulting stood to represent the applicant. Mr. Vaccaro explained the applicant originally wished to install a seasonal dock, retaining wall and do some tree removal and vista pruning. Mr. Vaccaro explained that due to concerns raised by Natural Heritage for the freshwater mussels in the area the dock portion of the application was being removed entirely. Mr. Vaccaro explained that the applicant wishes to have the other pieces approved and may be back to amend at a later time to include the dock. The Agent explained to the Commission that the vista corridor already exists on the property but needs some trimming. The Agent also explained that a retaining wall already exists on the property as well and that the applicant only wishes to extend it. The Commission questioned the letter sent by Natural
Heritage regarding the application. The Agent explained that their only concern and that raised by the Division of Fish and Wildlife was the seasonal dock. The agencies noted that they saw no adverse impact to the area if the seasonal dock was not installed. Mr. Vaccaro explained that the property owner also wished to plant three white pines to be used a screening on the property. He asked that the Order of Conditions be written to include the pines as optional and not included in the mitigative plantings. He also stated that there will be no tree removal, previously the applicant sought to remove a Red Maple from the property as part of the application. The Agent explained that he would be looking for mitigative plantings with a 90% survival rate over the three years. Commissioner Cross questioned who monitored the plantings and whose responsibility survival is. The Agent explained that Conservation was responsible for insuring compliance but that it was up to the property owner
to ensure survival or replant to keep ratio accurate. The Agent also explained that the vista pruning had closed for the year and no cutting will take place until November when the season reopens.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:15 p.m. Kathleen and Brown Lingamfelter, NOI – 65 Seconsett Point Road
(Demolish and rebuild garage with slight increase in footprint)
The Agent explained that the Commission would be requesting a continuance due to a printing problem at the Enterprise. The Agent went on to explain that the hearing notice/ public notices were not printed in time thus creating the need for the continuance until the notice can be properly advertised.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 05/29/2008 @ 7:18 p.m.
7:18 p.m. Ivan and Jean Partridge, RDA – 20 Mutiny Way
(Remove juniper along driveway and replace with native vegetation)
Brian Casey of Casey Landscape and Arboriculture Inc. stood to represent the applicant. The hearing had been previously continued so that a plan with proper delineations on it and a methodology on how the trees were to be removed could be obtained. Mr. Casey explained that the applicant wishes to remove the oversize junipers that are impinging on the driveway be removed and replaced with indigenious species. The Agent confirmed with Mr. Casey that all of the heavy machinery would be kept on the driveway and Mr. Casey did confirm that. The Agent explained that the project will call for no grade changes and that Mr. Casey would be grinding the stumps in place as to not disturb the bank anymore than necessary. Mr. Casey stated that the replacement plantings would be good for erosion control, plants as noted on the plan like Winterberry and
Inkberry. He did explain that there would be erosion controls put in place prior to work commencing and that they may require a hay bale line as well for this purpose. The Commission questioned the grinding of the stump versus removal. The Agent and Mr. Casey explained that the removal would be far more detrimental to the bank than grinding in place. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:21 p.m. Kathleen and Michael Bowler, NOI – 37 Birch Way
(Continued from 05/01/08)
The Agent explained that the applicants had requested a continuance. He further explained that the applicant’s had requested the continuance so that they could address some concerns raised by Natural Heritage.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 05/29/08 @ 7:21 p.m.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Brown
Board Secretary
| 
