Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of August 20, 2009
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Present: Vice Chairman Ralph Shaw, John Rogers, Lloyd Allen, Jeff Cross, Mark Gurnee, Leonard Pinaud,
Also Present: Conservation Agent-Drew McManus
The meeting was called to order with a quorum by Vice Chairman Shaw at 6:55 pm.
There was no public comment.
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda
1) Approval of Minutes from July 23, 2009
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of June 25, 2009.
2) Geoffrey Wall decision should be withdrawn without prejudice – No Positive Determination
Agent McManus stated that at the last meeting dated August 6, 2009 there was an applicant, Geoffrey Wall, at 146 Ninigret Avenue and Sakonnet Drive on John’s Pond for an RDA. Sakonnet Drive is a dirt road that wraps around several properties and separates the applicant’s property from John’s Pond. Mr. Wall wanted to propose a stone wall and beach sand for the other side of Sakonnet Drive. Agent McManus had told Mr. Wall prior to the meeting on August 6 that he would need to provide proof and deed that he owned that strip of land. Agent McManus looked at the assessor’s map and all the properties that border Sakonnet Drive, and noted that the property lines come to an end at the center of the road and the area beyond that, to the pond, is owned by the state. Mr. Wall was not able to present any form of ownership. The application at the August 6 meeting was given a Positive Determination in error so we are now proposing, after speaking with Mr. Wall, that the outcome of that
hearing be a withdrawal of application without prejudice instead of a positive determination. Basically because a positive determination states that the project doesn’t meet the performance standards for the resource area involved. Any project that is proposed with insufficient information should be withdrawn.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously to accept withdrawal without prejudice
3) Land Stewards meeting: 9/1/09 @ 6:30
Agent McManus would like to remind everyone that the Land Stewards meeting is on September 1, at 6:30pm in Conference Room 1 in which Michael Talbot will be speaking about ecological landscaping on Cape Cod.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 Patricia Cowhig, RDA (3 Bight Circle) – Enlarge existing patio to accommodate pool
Wayne Tavares of Tavares Land Design represented the applicant. This is a project that has an existing patio and hot tub with proposed expansion to accommodate a pool. Mr. Tavares confirms that the applicant is in flood Zone A and that this is an excellent opportunity to improve resource areas. There are two areas of the patio to be expanded, one is 8½ feet along the side and the other is expanding the waterside of the patio approximately 7½ feet. There is an area of 698 square feet that they would like to add on that is not in a resource area and it was in an area that was previously disturbed. This is now a mitigation area with winterberry, sweet fern, viburnum and blueberry and they are anticipating moving all of that plant material to a mitigation area that will be 1663 square
feet. This is an open area by the dock on the north side of the lot which is currently just grass that also will be planted. There will be about 104 plants installed. The access to the work area is quite poor and they will have to go around the property line and around the corner of the house. There is a huge 26” caliper pitch pine about 7-8 feet from the house and they would like permission to remove that as well. It will improve access but they can work around it if decided to leave it but it could be a hazard to the house if any hurricane comes along. The plants that exist in the proposed mitigation areas are listed in the plans and include pitch pine, viburnum, white oak, black oak and the infamous poison ivy. They will have the 104 plants planted plus the beach grass area that will be filled with sand. The first thing that will happen with this project, once the equipment arrives, is a retaining wall will be placed and will
show limits that they will be working inside of the project. Agent McManus met Mr. Tavarres onsite and stated that the pitch pine is an imminent hazard to the house. The expansion area is made up of mitigation areas that were in result of the house construction and to transplant those to areas outside and beyond the tree buffer and barren areas will really fortify the coastal bank which is being undercut. Planting beach grass in the front area would certainly be a tremendous benefit to the area and will salvage the property. Agent McManus feels that the mitigation being offered for the small area of expansion onto the patio for the accommodation of the pool meets the performance standards of a coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flow and would recommend negative determination. Mr. Gurnee asked about the odd shaping to the landscaping in which Mr. Tavarres answered that they were looking to keep things more natural looking with the shape
rather than straight lines. Mr. Cross mentioned that the bulkhead area is in bad shape and would like to address that the total area as a disaster and he is not adverse to any improvements but would like to make note of the entire area. Mike Cowhig, who owns the property next to this one, addressed the Board and asked if there is something more that he can do on his side of the bank as it would be in his best interest too as he is trying to protect as much of the bank as he can. Agent McManus suggested that Mr. Cowhig should keep an eye on the bank and see what happens over the winter.
Agent McManus recommended negative determination with the following conditions: (1) Mitigation (1663 square feet) must be completed at the earliest possible convenience upon completion of the patio extension (2) Agent must be contacted prior to work commencing (patio and plantings), and (3) Pitch pine may be removed at any time.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination with Conditions.
7:03 David Bazerman, NOI (50 Cayuga Ave) – Install 4’ x 65’ seasonal dock
Falmouth Engineering is representing Applicant and requested a continuance as they have not received comments from Natural Heritage.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 9/03/09 at 7:12 pm at the request of the applicant.
7:06 Bradley Snyder NOI – SE 43-2581 (93 Bluff Ave) – Replace cesspool with new Title V Septic (Continued from 8/06/09)
Dan Johnson from DSD, Inc. represented the applicant. The Board of Health has been trying for some time to get the existing cesspool upgraded and as a result the new owners have decided to take on this project. Mr. Johnson had met with Agent McManus and Glenn Harrington to see if there were any environmental restrictions on the property which extends right to the coastal beach on Nantucket Sound in New Seabury. There is a coastal dune which has Rosa Rugosa bushes and poison ivy existing. Basically, after speaking with Agent McManus and Mr. Harrington, the biggest environmental restriction from the Board of Health is any resource area that is within 100 feet so they would like to have an ultra violet system to kill any pathogens. As far as any nitrifications, none were warranted by the Board
of Health or any information like that from Agent McManus up to this point. They are upgrading their septic system to comply with the Board of Health regulations and Title V. There are many variances on the septic system that have to do with local upgrade approval just because of the proposed leaching area that is at the farthest corner of the property (farthest distance from coastal bank). Although it is a small house, it is a four bedroom house, so in order to comply with Title V, it was required to have a 600 square feet leaching field. The ground water is very shallow being close to the ocean and as a result they were able to fit a complete Title V septic system that complies with all regulations other
than local ones; meaning variances to offset the property line, to the house foundation and to reduce it from 5 feet to 4 feet to the ground water so that they can allow access to the house. Even though the property is in a flood plane, the Board of Health has not required a denitrification system as they went over in great detail and the main reason, at least from the Board of Health’s point of view, is that any of the houses along the Nantucket Sound have enough natural flushing that they do not need to add to that burden of cost to the homeowner for a pretreatment system.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:09 Michael Welch, Enforcement Order (277 Monomoscoy Rd.) Driveway is not approved footprint from plans (Continued from 7/23/09)
Agent McManus provided background information to the Commission about this filing from three years ago to build a house on Monomoscoy and during the construction according to the final plan of record showed the driveway to be of gravel. Potentially, the driveway was built larger than what the final plans of record showed and Conservation was never notified. The applicant came back with an “after the fact” amended order request to keep the driveway as is but the abutter had a few issues about runoff and flooding to his property as a result of this driveway. There have been a lot of arguments back and forth between the owner and the neighbor about the pervious-ness of concrete pavers and the possibility of sheet flow during heavy rain events. There was some surveying done in front of the property which showed water flow was in the opposite direction of the abutter’s property towards the salt marsh. The Commission, after hearing arguments from both sides, had decided to deny the
amended order request to keep the driveway as is. However, one of the things that the Commission had been hoping to take place were some concessions from the homeowners as Mr. Welch removed portions of the driveway along the property line that would lessen chance of run off and added some additional noise buffers from generators or any other concerns that the abutter, Mr. Camerato, may have had regarding the expanded driveway. No agreement was reached and a letter was received from the Mr. Camerato’s attorney asking what had happened to the enforcement order. Because no amicable agreement could be reached and since the Commission denied an amendment to the orders, an Enforcement Order has been drafted and according to protocol should go out to the owner to return the driveway to its original proposed plan of record. Agent McManus is aware that there is a representative for the Welch’s present at the hearing, Tom O’Neil, landscape designer, who
wanted to see if one last time if there could be an agreement reached without resulting in an enforcement order. Agent McManus would like to state that if the enforcement order is sent out and if they have to rip up the driveway, where the septic system is beneath and tied into the foundation of the house, could cause much more serious environmental concern as opposed to reaching an agreement between the two neighbors to do something to satisfy both sides. He does understand that the Commission voted to deny the amended order based on performance standards but knowing the layout of the house and ripping up the driveway would cause quite a bit of disturbance, he still hopes that some kind of agreement will be reached otherwise, the enforcement order will go out and can not be appealed unless it goes through a regular court system. It will be up to the Commission to establish a time line and if it is not done within the time specified, or an appeal has not been
filed, daily fines will be levied until the Enforcement Order is met.
Tom O’Neil is representing Mr. Welch as the landscape designer for the property. He had met with Agent McManus at the site a number of times for this project even as late as this past Tuesday. He would like to go over a proposal to try to create peace with the neighbor and also show the work that had been already finished as far as removing another three pallets of driveway pavers. At the time, Conservation had stated that they could put gravel there but he had felt that Mr. Camerato’s original concern was that a RV would be able to park alongside the boat so rather than putting gravel, where a RV could still be parked, they will plant grass and hope that the neighbor would know that there was never any intention of parking anything there. Mr. O’Neil states that Mr. Camerato
complained about where they put the A/C units up on the side of the house. Mr. O’Neil goes on to explain that the way the FEMA codes are in this town, all mechanical systems, including generators and condensing units, must be elevated to an elevation of 12. Mr. O’Neil wanted to recognize that there is noise from the condensers so they created a dense hedge along the entire length of the property line to buffer the noise. Basically, the owner has removed pavers, planted grass and Cyprus trying to address the neighbor’s concerns. Mr. O’Neil stated to Agent McManus on Tuesday that if it is still not satisfactory with the neighbor than they have a plan to remove more pavers on the side where the boat is and extend that line and place gravel so that there would be no pavers within 15 feet of the neighbor’s property line. Mr. O’Neil and the owner would be willing to remove more pavers if the Commission felt necessary. He
does feel that they have completed a lot which includes planting more material than what was required. It was never his or Mr. Welch’s intention to create any problems with the neighbor and they have tried to work very hard to restore peace.
Attorney Peter Harrington, representative for the abutter Mr. Camerato. Mr. Harrington explains that this is the first that he’s heard of these changes except for last September, he received a letter from Attorney Kirrane with a copy of the plans and Mr. Harrington wrote back to him with questions regarding the removal of the pavers and the slope that the plan originally proposed and he also had some questions about the elevation of the drains. Mr. Harrington states that he never heard back from them and contacted Agent McManus to ask him what was going on. Mr. Harrington reviewed the order from the Commission and according to his memory, one of the issues from the last hearing was the fact that this work was done without any requests or any forewarning to the Commission, Agent McManus or anyone
else. Mr. Harrington mentions that Mr. Camerato had spoken to the owners during the construction and had raised objections to what they were doing and were not in course of the plan. Mr. Camerato’s objections seem to have been addressed in the denial issued last September and those issues are a free standing stone wall on the property line in which the Commission and its order stated that the wall was in violation of regulations. Mr. Camerato’s concern is the material that was used to fill although the original plan states that it was going to be gravel and also showed sloping contours of the land but what has happened is the owner built up the contours in the narrow space between his house and the land so there is an issue of erosion forcing more storm water under his property. There is a question of the increase in pervious material as the original plan shows gravel and not the stone pavers. Not only is it in direct violation and all
peopled involved in the project should have known that they should have gone to the Commission with any changes to the plan. The fact that they haven’t heard from anyone in a year, and that Mr. O’Neil has been involved in these plans, although his Principals have never instructed any one to go to them or to ask for any input, and if someone had than they would have been happy to talk to them. Mr. Camerato would like to see Mr. Welch restrict it to what was originally proposed and that includes removing the wall, resloping and grassing the land. If the Commissioners feel that Mr. Welch will need pavers to get in and out of the driveway than he feels a limited driveway is reasonable and it would be up to the Commissioners to decide if they want to do an extension which may give Mr. Harrington and Mr. Camerato some answers to questions. They would be happy to work with Mr. O’Neil to try to get things straightened out but they insist that the
owners work within parameters of the law and within the confines of what they should be doing and not an “after the fact”.
Attorney Kevin Kirrane is representing Mr. Welch, the property owner. Mr. Kirrane states that if his memory serves correctly, as Attorney Harrington points out, that a letter was sent to Mr. Harrington to which he responded, Mr. Kirrane called him after he received his letter and asked Mr. Harrington if it was an unconditional position of the abutters regarding the retaining wall on the side of the property and that it had to be removed. Mr. Kirrane states that Mr. Harrington responded that basically the position was the wall had to go and that gives Mr. Kirrane and Mr. Welch serious concerns regarding the location of the septic system etc. At that point, Mr. Kirrane didn’t really see much point on carrying the conversation much further. Originally, the abutters concern was over drainage of
water over property and Mr. Kirrane believes that they addressed that in which it was demonstrated that the water flowed in a different direction. Mr. Kirrane believes that the removal of the wall really becomes the major contention because it could undermine the structure of the septic system.
Fred Camerato, abutter, addressed the Board and stated that these issues had started about two and a half years ago and it has cost him a lot of money to just get something that is fairly right for both parties involved. Mr. Camerato spoke to Mr. Welch when it all first started and he told Mr. Welch that he would like to work together with him and that he would like to be a good neighbor so he mentioned his concerns and Mr. Welch turned a deaf ear. Mr. Camerato let it commence and he saw the plans and noticed that it was not being built according to the plans. When Mr. Camerato approached Mr. Welch again, he didn’t want to hear it. Mr. Camerato stated that last year on September 10, 2008 there was an Enforcement Order from the Board that Mr. Welch was supposed to do something about and Mr. Welch never approached him to work something out. Mr. Camerato stated that if there is no agreement made than he would like a certain time period that this can be accomplished whether it’s
two weeks, a month, or whatever but after that, there should be a fine imposed. Mr. Camerato then questions the Board as to what authority they have because it has been more than a year and he would assume that once an enforcement order is issued, then they should comply and not be ignored. He is asking to just be fair and get this settled.
Mr. Pinaud asked what the issue is with the stone wall and if it meets performance standards. Mr. Camerato states from the audience that it is not tied into the septic system at all as he is a licensed builder and is willing to inform everyone that removing the driveway and wall will not disturb the septic system. Agent McManus answers Mr. Pinaud’s question and explains that in his opinion, the entire driveway and the whole length of the wall meets performance standards of land subject to coastal storm flow. What happened was that the Commission had voted to deny the Amended Order request, but his personal feeling was that the driveway does not violate the performance standards. No adverse effects to the salt marsh either and the idea that runoff from one single driveway was going to have
deleterious effects on the salt marsh is absurd. However, the Commission voted the way it did, to deny it, and the next recourse was to send out an Enforcement Order. The most important thing right now is to see if everyone can meet on site, himself and anyone else who feels that they should be brought into the situation and try to find another solution to be worked out. Otherwise, the Enforcement Order will go out and the Commission will need to determine a certain number of days when the work must commence to bring it back the original approved plan of record and the applicant can take matters into his own hands in civil court to decide what happens after that. The Enforcement Order can not be appealed through DEP as this is the final say. Mr. Pinaud asks if the Commission has already denied a particular issue and an enforcement order was not sent out yet, can the applicant change the plans and come before the Board again and Agent McManus states
that they can not as the original Orders of Conditions have expired this past year so there is no choice that Conservation has to issue the Enforcement Order even if the neighbors try to work something out, it still must go back to the original plan. Agent McManus agrees that the only recourse Conservation can do is to issue an Enforcement Order. Mr. Pinaud clarifies with Agent McManus that if the applicant wanted to submit changes it would be after the driveway is reduced to gravel and the wall removed and they can then submit a new application. Agent McManus agreed and states that they can apply for an RDA after they comply with the Enforcement Order. Mr. Cross is concerned about opening a new NOI and Agent McManus replies that it does not necessarily need to be an NOI. It would depend on the scope of the work.
Agent McManus states that because the Enforcement Order should have gone out months ago, the proper course of action should have already taken place. The Commission needs to decide how many days once the Order is issued, the owner has to comply. Agent McManus explains that the Enforcement Order is the permit to allow the owner to return the driveway to the original plans. Vice Chairman Shaw asks for a motion to set time for the owner to comply associated with the Enforcement Order. Mr. Pinaud asks if there is a customary time frame and Agent McManus responds that there is typically 10 days.
Mr. O’Neil requests to address the Board again. He would like to state the scope of the work involved in trying to comply with orders and that he disagrees with 10 days. He would like to have a reasonable amount of time, hoping that they might be able to work something out. Mr. O’Neil states that they have been trying to work with the neighbor and they haven’t thumbed their nose at anyone as the reduction of driveway and placement of grass shows. Mr. O’Neil is just asking to be given sufficient time to try to both comply with the order and also talk to the owner. Vice Chairman Shaw states that it has to revert to the plan of record and why would Mr. O’Neil need additional time for that. Mr. O’Neil explains that it is a lot of work and they also have
to figure out where to begin and Vice Chairman Shaw responds that if they can at least begin within 10 days, why would that be difficult. Mr. O’Neil explains that they would have to get people over there to be able to take away the pavers and they have to study the effects as the septic system is being protected by the pavers. Mr. O’Neil is asked what time is reasonable in his opinion and he responded 30 days. Mr. Cross states that he is not adversable to 30 days and asks Mr. Camerato if he will agree with it. Mr. Camerato states that 30 days is acceptable but how long it will go on after. Agent McManus states that if the Commission grants 30 days and the process is not started by that 30th day, than fines will start being levied on the 31st day. Mr. Pinaud asks what the recourse is if they do not finish once started and Mr. Allen recommends a completion date. It is suggested that it should not take more
than 60 days for completion. Agent McManus states that fines levied could be up to $300 per day but it is up to the Commission to decide on amount.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue the Enforcement Order.
7:12 Save Popponessett Bay Assoc., NOI (0 Wading Place Rd.) -Construction of drift fencing on Popponessett Spit (Continued from 8/06/09)
Agent McManus states that they are still waiting for a letter from Natural Heritage and have requested a continuance.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 9/03/09 at 7:09 pm at the request of the applicant.
7:15 Michael Corwin, RDA (48 Fells Pond) Remove two trees and maintenance pruning
Brian Casey from Casey Landscape & Arboriculture represented the applicant and is asking to remove one oak tree and one pitch pine tree. This RDA was continued from August 6th as Mr. Casey needed to consult with Mr. Corwin regarding mitigation versus leaving a snag in which the homeowner has agreed to do both. The owner would like if possible to reduce the snag to about 10’ and Mr. Allen questioned the height. Agent McManus states that this is a typical hazardous tree proposal and if the tree were to fall, it is possible that it will hit the house as it is approximately 50’ tall. A hazardous tree does not warrant mitigation rules because it is an imminent circumstance. Mr. Gurnee asks how it is determined that the tree is hazardous and Agent McManus states that Mr.
Casey is a Certified Arborists and Mr. Casey states that the tree has been completely dead for over a year. Mr. Casey states that they are willing to leave the wildlife snag and also willing to plant a 9-10’ Dogwood tree in the area. Mr. Allen states that a 10’ snag would look like a fence post and should just be removed. Agent McManus states that snags can benefit wildlife habitat as stated in our regulations. Mr. Cross asks why it would be left at 10’ as the house is almost 30’ from the tree and Mr. Allen responds that it is not only the house but there is an existing walking path within 10’. Mr. Casey would like to state that the homeowner would prefer to remove it altogether. Agent McManus states that the tree removal should be looked at from a wildlife habitat standpoint and mentions and that the Commission decides should consider one of two things; either remove the tree or leave the snag but regardless of
either decision, the owner is still willing to plant a dogwood. Mr. Casey agrees with leaving snags but not necessarily in this situation because there is no wildlife habitat right now. He believes that the idea of leaving snags is where there is already habitat. Although the owner is willing to leave the snag, Mr. Casey feels that because there is no wildlife in the snag than it should be considered for removal.
Mr. Gurnee asks about the 2nd tree and Agent McManus states that the second tree is too close to the house, probably within 8 feet of the roof and is leaning right towards the house. This oak tree is much more of a hazard than the pitch pine. Mr. Gurnee asks if it is also dead and Mr. Casey responds that it is not but it is so close to the house that if they were to do any pruning, there would be nothing left to the tree. The maintenance pruning that is stated on the application is really to just clear away from the roof structure. Agent McManus confirms that the maintenance pruning is to keep extended branches from depositing litter on the roof and causing mold issues. Mr. Casey states that they are also willing to plant another tree, possibly an Amalanchia tree. Vice Chairman Shaw asks Mr. Casey whether he has to get approval from New Seabury as well and Mr. Casey responds that he will. Mr. Casey states that basically what he is proposing now is to remove the pine pitch and
oak tree completely and replace with a dogwood and an Amalanchia. Agent McManus recommended negative determination with the following conditions: (1) One Dogwood tree to be planted to replace pitch pine (2) One Amalanchia to be planted to replace oak tree, and (3) Maintenance pruning limited to branches overhanging the roof only.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination with Conditions.
7:18 New Seabury Condos, RDA (94 Shore Drive West) Installation of 6’ fence
Don Monroe from Coastal Engineering is representing the applicant. This RDA is continued from August 6th and Mr. Monroe is submitting amended plans to show a survey of the mean high water line which is within 1/10 of what the license by the state shows. The license plan also shows an elevation of 1.9 feet and they were being conservative and showing mean high water of 2.0. The amended plans show that FEMA established all the flood elevations for the area. The plans also show the slot grades on the revetment and also the elevation of the walkway. There should be a copy of an email from Dave Hill who belongs to the Division of Waterways and also issued this license which shows no provisions for preventing a placement of a fence. The license requires passage to be
allowed seaward of mean high water land. Mr. Monroe feels that it should be negative determination on the RDA because they are not affecting any resource area. The proposed fence will be anchored with civil-engineered posts will be done by hand. It will be a 6’ high fence which they already have a sign off from the Zoning Department and it does not need a building permit or board of appeals. Agent McManus states that it will be recommended to include in the proposal a 6” clearance at the bottom to allow wildlife passage. Agent McManus also mentioned that he spoke with Dave Hill from the Department of Environmental Protections Waterways Chapter 91 and confirms that the project is above mean high water and that because of the size and scope of the proposed fence, it is an RDA permit and not a Notice of Intent. The fence will stretch across the walkway but is not blocking the Chapter 91 right to fish, fowl and navigate so at this time he
would like to recommend a negative determination. Mr. Pinaud asks what the purpose of the fence is and Agent McManus answers that it is to delineate the property lines. He asks the Board to look at the information provided and base decision on the performance standards as they apply to the coastal bank and also that the fence proposes no adverse affects to the bank or the upland.
Vice Chairman Shaw asks the audience if there are any questions and resident who is a trustee with Colony Villa asks to address the Board. He would like to respond to the question that was asked about the purpose of the fence which he believes the actual purpose is to cut off Colony Villas’ access to the beach which they have used for over 30 years. He would like to respectively ask the Board to take 30 days before permitting as they just received notice of this project yesterday at 4pm and they would like to consult with their attorney as they have serious issues with the high tide mark. If the walkway was not there, at high tide the water washes up over the bank. They had tried to get a surveyor in there but New Seabury would not allow them onto the land. They would like a chance to
discuss with their attorney and get their own surveyor. Agent McManus states that there is no relevance in obtaining another surveyor as they have the standards of professional surveyors’ plans and those standards have been met. Vice Chairman Shaw states that the opposing party can take any legal action they feel necessary, independently, outside of this RDA.
Another resident, also a Trustee at Colony Villa, would like to state that they are just a small association, not more than 10 people, and only two that are year round. She is asking the Board why they can not have a 30 day continuance to obtain an attorney. Agent McManus informs her that she is talking about property rights issues and she states that they are just asking for a 30 day continuance. Agent McManus explains that the continuance has to be based on strictly environmental reasons and the resident says that maybe their survey would provide different information in which Agent McManus responds that the information would be the same as all surveyors use the same technology and the same type of equipment. Vice Chairman Shaw states that as far as the Board is concerned, this application meets
all the legal requirements. The resident asks if they can appeal it and if a notice will be sent to her. Agent McManus states that the Conservation Department is not responsible for sending a notice and that once the appeal is filed, it is then in her hands. Agent McManus recommends to not start work on the fence yet as Colony Villa has 10 days to appeal.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination with conditions.
7:21 Johns Pond Estates, RDA (Tim’s / Sunset Beach) – Beach nourishment
Michael Rose is representing Johns Pond Estates and would like to refurbish the beach area and bring it back to its natural standards. Agent McManus states that he had discussed with Mr. Rose in regards to him being able to provide information from the supplier that the sand is microbe-clean and grain compatible which is most important for consideration of beach nourishment and he also explained that the beach nourishment is to be contained strictly to the area of existing sand and also including where the grass is encroaching over, but there is to be no dredging or disturbance of the bank of any kind; basically, to put sand only where sand once existed. Other than that, Agent McManus states that this is a pretty straight forward application but mentions to Mr. Rose that he would like follow up with him, at
another time, regarding an issue of a boat tethered to vegetation on the land and storage of kayaks on the shoreline in which Mr. Rose agrees.
Mr. Pinaud would like to clarify that this is a fresh water pond and why would they need beach nourishment. Agent McManus explains that with grass encroachment and historical use, they are just placing new sand. Mr. Gurnee asked if there were any issues with covering the grass area and Agent McManus answered that they would cover only the encroaching grass with the new sand as it originally was all sand previously. Agent McManus mentioned to Mr. Rose that he is not to place any sand on the fully grassed areas and that he would also like to see the area staked prior to bringing in the sand which Mr. Rose has agreed to. Agent McManus recommends a negative determination with the following conditions: (1) Agent must be contacted prior to work commencing (2) Sand deposition limited to areas of
existing sand, and (3) No digging or dredging to accommodate sand.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination with Conditions.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:40pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Carpenter
Administrative Secretary
| 
