Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of September 17, 2009
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Present: Chairman Jack Fitzsimmons, Vice Chairman Ralph Shaw, Lloyd Allen, Jeffrey Cross, Brad Sweet
Also Present: Conservation Agent - Drew McManus
The meeting was called to order with a quorum by Chairman Fitzsimmons at 6:55 pm.
There was no public comment.
Comments from Chairman
Chairman Fitzsimmons would like to welcome Mr. Brad Sweet who is newly appointed as Associate Commissioner to the Commission.
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda
1) Administrative Approval for 7 Crow Road SE 43-2517 Christopher Peacock
Mark Wood from Wood Landscaping is representing the homeowner and explains that currently they have pressure treated steps leading down from the retaining wall and would like to replace them with stone using the same foot print and also a tie table that they would like to remove.
Agent McManus explains that this project is originally from a NOI that permitted the retaining wall and landscaping and then amended for a dock and pier. These steps are existing and the applicant would to like to replace the pressure treated wood with stone with no expansion to footprint.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the Administrative Approval as proposed.
2) Approval of Minutes from August 6, 2009
Agent McManus explains that we had inadvertently approved the wrong date at the September 3rd hearing and that the correct date should have been August 6, 2009 and not July 9, 2009. The correct minutes were handed out but unfortunately stated the wrong date.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of August 6, 2009 as Amended.
3) Approval of Minutes from August 20, 2009
Chairman Fitzsimmons commented on one correction needed pertaining to the August 20th minutes.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of August 20, 2009.
4) Compact of Cape Cod – New Seabury / Orenda Wildlife Trust
Agent McManus states that there is a conservation restriction that was given to him from The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trust. This is for a 28 acre parcel in New Seabury referred to as Section 5. Compact has given him a sign-off sheet for the Commissioners to approve as proposed. Orenda Wildlife Conservation Trust is purchasing the adjacent Witch Pond parcel but it will fall under conservation jurisdiction because it is entirely in the town of Mashpee. It will be acceptable if the Commissioners would like to take time to read it and then sign it at the next hearing. Chairman Fitzsimmons agrees that he would like to be able to review it and also asked if there were maps which Agent McManus confirms that
there are. The Agent also states that the conservation restriction in general for any of our parcels, the Vinhaven parcel being the latest to receive it, basically says that it is only for passive recreation and are very strict about what can and cannot take place as far as activities and what can be built (if anything) but it is all outlined in the restrictions. Mr. Sweet refers to a discussion with Orenda in regards to providing a walking path along Great Oak Road and he is wondering if there will be a portion of this parcel used for this purpose. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks for enough copies of the restrictions for all the Commissioners and Agent McManus confirms that there will be copies made on the following day and placed in all of their mail boxes in the office.
5) Pond Front Homeowners - Letters
Agent McManus believes that a “can of worms’ had been opened up and was hoping to come up with an idea that would help it go a little smoother. We have been seeing applications coming in for ‘after the fact’ approval of seasonal docks on all of our fresh water bodies; John’s Pond, Ashumet, Mashpee-Wakeby, Santuit and Fells Pond. This has caused a ripple effect when one person has to go through the permitting process, they turn to their neighbors and ask what their status is for their dock. It has caused a lot of contention as we get flooded with phone calls from people that are going through the process or will have to go through the process and they want to know what we are doing
about the neighbors. He has decided to draft a letter and had the Assessing Department provide all the mailing addresses, including year round addresses, for all pond front property on all great ponds in Mashpee. The letter will explain to the homeowner that if they have a dock on the property, it has to be permitted unless it is ‘grandfathered’ and that requires that the burden of proof is on the homeowner and they will need to show that to the Commission. Any docks or piers that have been permitted through us will need to have the DEP number displayed from the water side so that the Harbormaster and the Conservation Agent can see that they have gone through the proper procedure and it is permitted. This is basically a preventive measure to give homeowners the alert so that when one has to go through the process and he questions the status of his neighbor, the response can be that the neighbor received a letter and is aware.
All this started with a homeowner on Johns Pond, who ended up paying a heavy price through Natural Heritage and Endangered Species for the take of the Tidewater Mucket (a state listed endangered freshwater mussel) when he put in an un-permitted seasonal dock and anchored it with concrete cinder blocks. It had resulted in crushing several Tidewater Muckets and a several thousand dollar fine. Agent McManus believes that it is very important to give the homeowners a heads-up and he would also be willing to speak to any of the Associations around the ponds to let the owners know what needs to be done for seasonal docks and piers. It is something that people are not aware of or maybe they are and figure that on one will notice
or they simply do not know because the dock was there when they bought the house. This letter is an informative measure to let homeowners know of the permitting requirement of docks under local Wetlands Protection Act and the state act too. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species looks after a few different species of freshwater pond mussel that are prevalent in Mashpee-Wakeby, John’s Pond and possibly Ashumet Pond.
Chairman Fitzsimmons mentions that it will end up being a lot of letters and Agent McManus agrees and responds that it will be hundreds but based on recent events as far as “backlash” and the homeowners are getting upset because they think they are being targeted. Mr. Sweet asks if this is being done in conjunction with the Harbormaster and Agent McManus states that it will be. He has not had a chance to speak with him as of yet but intends to do so as it will make both of their jobs easier if the DEP # is displayed correctly. If it is visible from the water, it makes an easier task for Perry and his summertime help to identify that the docks have been permitted. The only time Agent McManus has been able to discover an un-permitted dock is when he goes onto the
property for other proposed projects as he always looks to see what else is going on when he is there to take photos for proposed projects.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if the letter covers which docks are under Chapter 91 and Agent McManus answers that the letter does include information for 10/A floats which also requires a 10/A number posted. The letter also explains that if it is attached to land then it may not be a 10/A float and it may be classified as a dock. If any portion of a walkway that is attached to the float and is supported by land under water then it is classified as a dock. Also explained in the letter is that a float can not exceed 150 square feet in overall size and mentions off season storage as people have been known to drag it onto the shore and lay store the float on vegetated banks or tethered to trees.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if the salt water homes will be covered and Agent McManus confirms that it will be covered as well although salt water docks are a lot harder to disguise as they are more noticeable. Mr. Sweet asks if we will be requiring labeling which Agent McManus states that Conservation will necessitate that all docks have the number displayed just as it is spelled out in the permitted Orders when issued. Mr. Allen is concerned about rebuilding a grandfathered dock and Agent McManus explains that if the dock owners are only replacing railings or planks then the homeowner would need to submit an RDA but if they are changing the footprint in any way whether it is lengthening or widening or even adding extra support then they would need to apply for a Notice of Intent.
Mr. Allen also mentioned that maybe the name should be added with the number that is posted on the dock as it is possible that the homeowner may put an incorrect number. Agent McManus explains that if any information is falsified, we would know whether through the Harbormaster or through our records. Chairman Fitzsimmons expresses a similar concern as a homeowner could have an existing permitted dock and decides to replace with a larger dock that they might use the DEP # that was on the original.
Mr. Sweet asks what the impact is on the homeowner in terms of cost to apply for a permit and filing which Agent McManus states that it could be substantial because all docks projects require an NOI filing as well as engineered plans, which can be expensive. Although we should not take expense into account when considering proposed projects. The agent went on to say that the state agency, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species (NHESP) has jurisdiction over these great ponds and are concerned with three endangered species of freshwater mussel; the Tidewater Mucket, Eastern Pond Mussel and the Lamplight Mussel. Each NOI filing for a seasonal dock requires NHESP review. Most, if not all of these reviews inevitably end up requiring the homeowner to have a freshwater mussel survey
conducted by a certified freshwater biologist at the homeowner’s expense.
Mr. Sweet asks if we have the names of all the associations so that we can be pro-active and reach out to them and Agent McManus confirms that he does and he will be reaching out to them and be willing to speak at any one of their meetings and answer any questions that they might have whether it is about docks or conservation jurisdiction in general.
6) New England Forestry Consultants
Agent McManus would like to discuss one more item for the Pre/Post Hearing agenda and that was a couple of meetings ago, he had mentioned a forester from New England Forestry Consultants was hired by Mass Fish and Wildlife to take a baseline inventory of the Vin Haven parcel, the recently purchased 78-acre parcel off of Route 130 and extends all the way to Mashpee-Wakeby Pond. It is a great report and covers everything from vegetated layers, encroachment that was observed, trash that was dumped, what the activity areas will be and what they are comprised of and everything about the conservation restrictions that was placed on the parcel. He will have the report back in the office next week and will see if he can request additional copies as it is very thick and on “acid-free”
paper (no deterioration). He recommends that the Commissioners take a look at it as it is very interesting and the consultant was very thorough in covering the boundaries and every last detail about the parcel.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 Karen Keelan, NOI - SE 43-2587 (4 Keelan Way) Vista Pruning
Wayne Tavares from Tavares Landscape is representing the applicant. Mr. Tavares mentions that there were some trees proposed for removal on the other side of the house that he had forgotten. He states that this is pretty straightforward vista pruning. This is a house with a deck that was approved previously and the building is complete so now the homeowner is looking for vista pruning. Mr. Tavares states that he used the Mashpee Vista Pruning Guidelines to create the area being discussed. He taped it out for Agent McManus to view when he came out to the site to take pictures. It is 25% of the full width of the lot. It is centered on the deck and when he met with Agent McManus on this issue,
they recognized that there are very few large trees in this vista corridor. There are no trees to be removed except one dead tree which is just 3 feet on the left side of the corridor. There is one black oak that needs to be pruned and a red cedar which won’t be touched. It is an area of shrubbery, undergrowth and poison ivy which they will look for some poison ivy control. All of the low brush is poison ivy and pokeweed and as you get to the back, there are black cherry, huckleberry and low cedars. It is a perfect place for vista work. Mr. Tavares did miss two trees on the left side to remove: a 10” black oak and a 6” red oak, which is not part of the vista pruning but he is adding it to the application because the trees are sitting up real tight to the side of the house and are considered hazardous in the event of a storm. They have mitigated the site to great extent to be able to put the house in and they will mitigate
further if they choose.
Agent McManus states that he does not have an issue with removing the two trees as he agrees that they are very close to the house and it is advisable to remove them. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if there are any protocols that establish how far a tree should be from the house so that it is not a hazard in the future and Agent McManus responds that there is not. On new filings, the applicants and contractors have taken that into account but older houses have hazardous trees that started out as saplings. With all the landscaping and hardscaping that has taken place on these properties over the years, they have all of a sudden become a hazard.
Mr. Allen would like to know how much of the understory will be removed and Mr. Tavares responds that he is following Mashpee Guidelines and consulted with Drew. Agent McManus did mention to Mr. Tavares on site that any bittersweet or vine growing up the trees can be removed which will also help the view and help save the trees. It is generally recommended that invasive vines be removed.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if there is any sloping to the lot and Mr. Tavares states that the lot is almost dead level. They had walked around to the back and the pitch through the cone of vista is barely 2 feet, it is very gradual. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if anyone has any issues with the two trees that will be removed and then proceeds to ask the audience if anyone has any comments.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:03 Mark Efron, RDA (358 Monomoscoy) Renovate Existing Dwelling
Bob Burpee from R.H. Burpee Co. is representing the home owner. The application is a little off as Mark Efron is no longer with us and Mrs. Efron is making the application. They are proposing to take the existing structure that is there and re-roof, re-side, new windows and take the garage that is on the structure and turn it into a master suite and sitting room. No additions are proposed to the structure with the exception of a small set of stairs on the right side of the building where the evergreens are. The reason for that is that prior to this house being on the site, there was another structure which was smaller with a very small basement with the utilities for the house. They would like to pull
the utilities out of the basement and put them into a utility room within the garage space. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if this plan was made some time ago and Agent McManus confirms that because this is an RDA, he can use a previous plan. Chairman Fitzsimmons clarifies that the garage structure shown on the map is the garage being converted to a Master Suite and Mr. Burpee confirmed that it is. He also states that he has a plan that shows the staircase and that the screen house is being removed and nothing will be replacing it.
Agent McManus states that it is pretty straight forward and there are no impacts except for one issue that was discussed prior. He found that in looking back in a previous filing, there is a pre-existing boat ramp that was permitted. It is a grandfathered structure that had fallen into disrepair and was approved by this Commission to have it repaired in 1999. He believes that the repair work was never done or that it was not done correctly but as it is a grandfathered structure, it is up to the homeowner what they want to do with it and it is not part of this application.
Mr. Allen asks if the costs of renovations are over 50% of the value and Mr. Burpee replies that it is not. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if there are any more questions or if anyone from the audience wishes to comment on the application.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:06 Marjorie Altschuler, RDA (68 Waterway) Replace Two Cesspools with Title V
John Slavinski from Cape & Island Engineering is representing applicant. This home has two leaching facilities, one of which is sitting in the groundwater. They would like to replace it with a current Title V System in which they will put a SludgeHammer Treatment System in the septic tank. He will push the entire project as far away from the wetlands as possible and maintain a 100’ separation distance from the edge of the leaching facility.
Agent McManus asks what the SludgeHammer system is and Mr. Slavinski explains that it is another treatment like a Fast System or somewhat like a BioClear system and is a microbial treatment. Agent McManus says that Ronnie Warden from the Health Department had concerns about any type of expansion from this microbial life form outside of the tank and Mr. Slavinski states that it is only for immediate use which is this case. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if there are any questions.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:09 Elizabeth Spohr, NOI – SE 43-2588 (338 Monomoscoy) Pier, Ramp and Float
John Slavinski from Cape & Island Engineering is representing applicant. This is for a dock that was permitted by the Commission about six years ago. A requirement from the Zoning Board of Appeals was that a house be on the lot before the dock could be built. Three years had gone by and the lot has not been sold and the house was not built so they extended the Order of Conditions in which that extension just expired in June of this year. The lot still has not been sold and the house has still not been built so they have had to re-file. No changes.
Agent McManus states that there are two sets of plans in which one is a side profile and the other is of the lot itself. He says that this is a straight forward dock application. Mass Fisheries & Wildlife had sent in a letter after they had received the plans with their standard reply and are in favor of the grating on the planks with more sunlight penetration and float stops for low tide which will be incorporated in the Orders of Conditions. Rick York and Perry Ellis have both signed off on this application as Perry Ellis has spent significant time with the homeowner going over the plans.
Mr. Cross asks if there has been any type of physical change in the last six years and Mr. Slavinski responds that there has not been any. Agent McManus asks if there is any information on boat size and Mr. Slavinski states there is not. Agent McManus says that it can be added to the Orders when it comes in. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if there are any more questions.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:12 Tamara Walker, RDA (381 Great Oak) Maintenance Pruning / Osprey Nest
Applicant has requested continuance to November 19 due to scheduling conflict.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 11/19/09 at 7:00 pm at the request of the applicant.
7:15 Stephen & Katherine Howe, NOI – SE 43-2584 (76 Spoondrift) Demolish / Rebuild (Continued from 9/3/09)
Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental Engineering is representing on behalf of the applicants. This project is a continuance from two weeks ago in which there was a brief discussion but it was determined fairly quickly that there were some plan revisions being contemplated as a result of zoning issues. At that point, the presentation was ended so that they could make the plan revisions, site visit and do some additional staking at the property.
This is a case where there are two adjacent parcels which currently one is undeveloped vacant land and a contemporary single family home on the other. The Conservation Commission, in recent past, had issued a permit for development of the second single family residence on the southern property which was never built, it remained undeveloped. Mr. Vaccaro wanted to note that this was an important point for everyone. This project would eliminate the concept of two side-by-side single family residences and replace it with a one single family that straddles across the current property line. It will have a detached garage and the main house is much larger than what is existing. They are not getting any closer to the
resource area than what it is now. At the site visit last week, Agent McManus expressed some concern about the size of the deck where it encroaches closest to the coastal bank and also the amount of clearing that would extend to the undeveloped area of the site. Mr. Vaccaro explains that they reduced the size of the deck and made the stairways that access the deck on the lower level more narrow. Basically, they brought down the amount of structure in that area within 50’ of the wetland and they also brought the work limits back to basically follow the edge of what had been previously maintained as lawn so it no longer extends out to the undeveloped portion of the property. There was also a question regarding the cinderblock patio on the north side of the house which is being removed and will be restored with good native plantings that Mike Talbot has been working on. Mr. Vaccaro explains that Mike Talbot from Talbot Ecological Landscaping has a
mitigation plan and is present if there are any questions that need addressed regarding the proposed restoration. Mr. Slavinski from Cape & Island Engineering is also present. Mr. Vaccaro would like to mention that the septic system will be moved way out and will have an alternative treatment system which will improve the situation. He feels that this is a good opportunity for the town to basically preserve what little undeveloped land is left on Popponesset Creek.
Agent McManus states that he did meet with Mr. Vaccaro and they did discuss and clarify where the deck outline was going based on the staking in the field and he is satisfied with the increased planting area by removing the hard patio. Agent McManus states that he is satisfied with the results that they came up with at the onsite and that the grass area is going to be mitigated. The only recommendation he has is the pathway that goes down to the salt marsh and up back around not to be created that close to the salt marsh as there is already a path going to the dock (guidelines for naturally vegetated buffer strips calls for only one 4’ pathway).
Mr. Cross mentions some kind of tank in the middle of the marsh land in which Mr. Vaccaro agrees that that particular area seems to accumulate debris. Agent McManus states that it should not be conditioned into this project but it is recommended that the homeowners look it into the possible removal in the future. Mr. Vaccaro mentions that it would be a disturbance to the salt marsh as the tank would have to be dragged out and Agent McManus confirms this and would definitely need to see some sort of plan of removal as salt marshes are highly regulated resource areas. Chairman Fitzsimmons recommends proceeding with project and asks Agent McManus to go out to the site to view debris.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:18 James & Michelle Duane NOI – SE 43-2589 (74 Nick Trail) Demolish & Rebuild Single Family Home
Robert Toll is representing Pesce Engineering on behalf of the homeowners. This project is a tear down/rebuild of an existing dwelling. This property was recently presented to the Commission for an RDA to allow the homeowners to upgrade their septic system which has been installed. The proposed house is pretty much on the same footprint with a minor expansion in the rear and he believes they are adding a second floor as well. This is a fairly straight forward project as they are not in any resource area but it is in a flood zone.
Agent McManus states that this is a postage stamp lot as it is all grass with maybe two trees in the rear along the fence. There is an abutter who could not be present for the hearing with concerns regarding mostly building but one of his concerns was with runoff issues. There will be gutters directed to dry wells with the new rebuild to catch runoff. Mr. Toll states that it is mostly the same footprint so there will not be any additional runoff. It’s pretty much a flat lot in the rear and they are planning to remove the existing tabular which is pretty much a trade-off of the amount of roof area that is being added.
Mr. Sweet asks what the pipe is that is shown on the picture and Mr. Duane answers from the audience that the pipe is actually the remnants from an old basketball hoop and will be removed when the house is demolished. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if the same amount of bedrooms will be the same and Mr. Toll responds that that is correct.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:21 JellyBone LLC, RDA (374 Monomoscoy) Fence / Driveway / Pruning / Tree Removal
The homeowner, John Parker, is present and explains that he would like to finish the landscaping. The plan shows the trees to be removed and the fence that will border the north side all the way down. They tried to keep most of the trees with the build of the residence but would like to now supplement the existing trees and along the side of the house.
Agent McManus states that this was a Notice of Intent that was presented a few years ago for the construction of the garage and home. Some of this project was part of the original NOI but the permit has expired so they are coming forward with an RDA which will include the shell driveway that was supposed to be part of the NOI. Everything else is pretty routine. Land subject to coastal storm flow is the resource area but he does not see any impact as they are all changes taking place within the previously approved permit. There is no encroachment behind the property out to the salt marsh. There is an existing walkway to a boat slip but there are no proposed changes out there with the exception of the fence
going along the property line in which it is a partially green fence and part trees. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if there are any questions.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:24 Michael Gregoire, RDA (134 Ninigret Ave.) Tree Removal
Michael Gregoire from Tree Fellers Tree Service is representing the homeowner. There are some lower branches on two trees in the front that are touching the roof on the left side of the house and there are also some pretty low limbs on the right which are low enough to touch the vehicles. The homeowner would like to remove these lower limbs in the front.
Agent McManus states that this is basically an overall maintenance pruning / tree removal request. The house is on Sakonnet Drive on John’s pond in which the 100 foot setback just reaches to the cherry tree in the back yard which does need to be removed as it is about to fall on the house. There are also three hemlocks that need to be removed that have long since died and they represent a potential hazard during a windstorm. The remainder of work is pruning branches over the house to prevent the build up of mildew and debris. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if there are any questions.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:27 Jack and Rachel Newkirk, RDA (113 James Circle) Garden Shed
Rachel Newkirk would like to erect a garden shed. Agent McManus asks if it is a pre-constructed shed and Mrs. Newkirk confirms that it is. Agent McManus goes on to state that there might be some minor grading involved so that the shed will be level. The area is all lawn down to John’s Pond so there is really no impact. The proposed location is just outside the 50 foot buffer to John’s Pond. Mr. Sweet inquires what the size of the shed is and Mrs. Newkirk states that is approximately 8 x 10. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks how it will be anchored and Agent McManus states that it will be sonic tubes or blocks most likely. Chairman Fitzsimmons mentions that maybe it can be conditioned
into the RDA in which Agent McManus says it is not typical to condition an RDA but the Commission can state the type of support for the shed in which it was agreed on that cement blocks is the preference and least impacting to the resource area.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:10pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Carpenter
Administrative Secretary
| 
