Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2009
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Present: Chairman Jack Fitzsimmons, John Rogers, Lloyd Allen, Jeffrey Cross
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.
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda
1) Approval of Minutes from July 9, 2009
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of July 9, 2009.
2) John Johansen Dedication Ceremony
Agent McManus would like to remind everyone of the John Johansen Dedication Ceremony on August 19, 2009 at 1:00pm. Chairman Fitzsimmons would like to say a few words prior the start of the ceremony to give credit to all the people and businesses involved.
3) Land Stewards Meeting
Agent McManus would also like to remind people of the Mashpee Land Steward meeting on September 1, 2009 at 6:30pm in Conference Room 1. Mike Talbot will be the first guest speaker and will review utilizing smart landscaping and invasive species followed by Agent McManus discussing signage that have been recently purchased where they plan to be placed.
4) Sharpe Conservation Area (Santuit Pond)
Sharpe Conservation Area, also known as the Santuit Pond Conservation Area has been recently cleared by Mashpee Department of Public Works (as part of the Land Steward Program) to make parcel more appealing by clearing around the sign, mowing, and placing some boulders to block vehicle access at the bottom of the hill. The main entrance further around the corner near Santuit Pond Road will have a gate installed due to illegal dumping.
5) Signage for Vinhaven Parcel
Agent McManus stated that a decision is needed for a name for the Vinhaven parcel as the parking area is finished and the road that cuts through the center of the parcel is clear giving access as there is a recreation plan done by Tom Fudala. Because these parcels are starting to open up to the public, there should be signage with the name of the parcel. Agent McManus suggested the surrounding area name (Mashpee-Wakeby) as an idea as well. The sign company will be contacted as soon a consensus is reached.
6) New Signage
The new signage has arrived and there are 25 that identify parcels as Mashpee Conservation – No Illegal Dumping, No Motorized Vehicles that will be placed throughout all of them as well as the conservation boundary markers.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 Michael Welch, Enforcement Order (277 Monomoscoy Rd.) Driveway is not approved footprint from plans (Continued from 7/23/09)
Requesting continuance for two weeks. Owner expanded driveway with pavement which was supposed to be gravel and is also beyond the original footprint. The neighbor claims that there is run-off of drain water onto his property resulting from driveway. The owner applied for an Amended Order of Conditions “after the fact” which was denied. Both parties had been asked to work it out and neither could come to an agreement. Legal counselors for both parties will attend the August 20th meeting.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 8/20/09 at 7:09 pm at the request of the applicant.
7:03 Ralph Buliung, RDA (164 Captains Row) Repair/Rebuild Pier, Float and Ramp
Mark Burtis of Little River Dock Construction represented the applicant. Applicant has been on lot since the early 60’s with original dock. Dock is in need of repair and would like to replace using the same foot print, elevate to standards and put flow through decking. Mark pointed out the barren area in which he thinks is due from hauling deck on to shore even though it was not supposed to be. He believes that once elevated with flow through decking, the tall marsh grass may grow and spread. Would like to replace the pipes with three-pilings instead of four. One would be placed dead center and one on each corner. Agent McManus states that it is a pretty straight forward Request for Determination as the footprint is not changing. It is a “grand-fathered”
dock and the improvement will actually benefit surrounding plants and the stability of the piles. Agent McManus recommends a negative determination. Chairman Fitzsimmons asked if the shellfish would be impacted and Mr. Allen pointed out a public access way on map as reason why deck will be elevated and also the elevation will allow shellfish raking.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:06 Save Popponessett Bay Assoc., NOI - SE 43-2561 (0 Wading Place Rd.) Construction of drift fencing on Popponessett Spit (Continued from 7/23/09)
Norman Hayes is representing applicant and has requested a continuance for two weeks because there has been a discrepancy with the Federal Fish and Wildlife, State Fish and Wildlife and the Natural Heritage Endangered Species. They have all gotten together to Save Popponesset Bay through him to appeal their decisions and have an agreement to place three sandrift fences. They are expecting a letter from them based on a meeting that they are having on August 12, 2009 and would therefore like to continue project for two weeks. At that time Norman Hayes will have a letter from Scott Melvin addressed to the Commission which will lift the prohibition from the board to issue orders for this project.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 8/20/09 at 7:12 pm at the request of the applicant.
7:09 Dorothy Cannon, RDA (221 Monomoscoy Rd.) Three new additions to existing home
Mike Borselli of Falmouth Engineering represented the applicant. He is asking permission for three minor additions to an existing dwelling on 221 Monomoscoy Road. This is an existing single family home that is completely developed as a typical residential dwelling with an established lawn, landscaping and driveway and not within access of 100 feet of the water, but the resource area in question is the flood zone that runs through the property. The three minor additions are a 7.5’ x 8.5’ entryway, a 12’ x 14’ three season room, and a 12’ x 12’ expansion of the kitchen on the rear of the house. All the work is outside of the floodzone A. There is no reason to do any excavation other than the cross wall foundation. There is no need to do any clearing or
alterations to the lot. Mr. Cross asked Mr. Borselli if there would be any dimensional problems with the addition in the rear and about the lot behind it which Mr. Borselli stated that the there is an existing dwelling on that lot and the addition of the three season room will be just to the left of the existing deck in the rear of the house. Agent McManus stated that the Board of Health would like to know if the three season room addition will have any type of heating system which Mr. Borselli replied that they can assume that there will be heat for purposes of removing the chill in the colder months. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Borselli what the elevation of the ground is and he replied that it is 12.4 and the first floor of the dwelling is 16.9.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
7:12 Timothy & Lynne Menzie, NOI – SE 43-2582 (12 Squaws Lane) Demo / Rebuild
Mike Borselli of Falmouth Engineering represented this applicant also. This lot is in a fully developed neighborhood with homes on all sides and again the only natural wetland resource area in question is Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage. There is a beach at the end of Squaw’s Lane that is in access of 150-200’ from the boundaries of the Menzie’s property. There are two houses between the applicant’s lot and the beach. However, this is a fairly extensive construction and they are raising the building and reconstructing the new building as to why they are applying for a Notice of Intent instead of an RDA. The house will be torn down and reconstructed effectively in the same place with some minor changes in the dimensions of the outside. The actual lot
coverage will decrease by 1½% of original coverage. There is an existing Title V septic system already in place, relatively new and installed, and there will not be an increase in bedrooms. The property information has been forwarded to the Health Department for their review and comment. The only change to the septic system will be to move the existing tank, which is now in conflict, and move it to the front where it will no longer be in conflict with the foundation. There is a variance application pending with the Board of Health to allow the tank to be in the position of 5’, the minimum set back is 10’ but this is a preferred position on the lot and they had a conversation with Mr. Harrington who suggested they submit the variance application. Chairman Fitzsimmons asked if we have received a letter from the Board of Health as of yet and Agent McManus responded that we will not issue orders until Board of Health has approved.
Mr. Cross stated that he would also prefer the driveway to be moved so that it is not across the gas lines as there will be less traffic on them in which Mr. Borselli has agreed to the change. Agent McManus received a letter from Mr. Patrick Foley who is an abutter at 8 Squaws Lane in which he expresses his concerns after reviewing the plans from Falmouth Engineering. Mr. Foley recommends that Mr. & Mrs. Menzie install dry wells for rain leaders on the side and rear of new construction so as not to contribute additional runoff to roadway which at the lowest road elevation experiences severe flooding during heavy precipitation. Mr. Foley would also like to recommend a gravel based/crushed stone driveway to allow maximum percolation. Agent McManus stated that they are also his recommendations and to condition the Orders as he agrees the flooding is pretty severe.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks the audience if there are any comments and Karen Rodine states her name to address the board. She is another abutter of 12 Squaws Lane and would like to also confirm the severe flooding and would like to submit a picture showing such flooding following a storm. She states that she was the previous owner of property and they designed the driveway so that it goes around the dwelling to help alleviate some water runoff. Mr. Borselli has agreed that it is in everyone’s best interest to make changes to the plans to include dry wells and gravel/crushed stone for the driveway. Mr. Borselli also stated that he spoke to the Building Commissioner who reviewed the plans and since it is a modification of a pre-existing non-performance structure, the Commissioner has the opinion
that he can issue a building permit.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue pending receipt of revised plan.
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. Agent McManus questioned Mr. Casey of the specific location of the pitch pine tree because there are two located in rear of house. Mr. Casey answers that it is the one that is farther from the house and the reason why they would like to remove it is because it is dead and has absolutely no growth on it. Agent McManus asked if there was any immediate hazard to the property in which Mr. Casey replied that the tree is approximately 50’ high and could possibly hit the house. Agent McManus suggested pruning as the applicant has a vista pruning permit on file. Chairman Fitzsimmons mentioned that this property went through three meetings going over the
landscaping and how they were very careful in the fact of preserving as many trees as possible because of the way this house was framed and the opening to the pond. Mr. Casey says that this tree is completely dead and probably has been dead for approximately two years. Agent McManus is concerned that if it is a potential hazard to the house, than the commission should not deny removal because if something were to happen to the house because of a potential storm, than the town would be held responsible. Agent McManus suggests maybe other alternatives and the Chairman suggests mitigation. Agent McManus states that the property may not be able to spare extra space for mitigation and Chairman Fitzsimmons recommends planting another tree. Mr. Casey states that he would have to speak to the owner first before agreeing with the board and is asked if he would like to continue until next hearing. Mr. Casey asked if they were to leave the tree as it
stands, at what height would be allowable. Agent McManus suggests if left as a snag than a height of 20’ would be acceptable. The preferable alternative would be mitigation as the tree is infested with what looks like bark beetle and Mr. Cross stated that it would be better to not let that continue. Chairman Fitzsimmons recommends to cut it and plant another tree in same spot but with a 1” or 2” sapling with some clearing of the cllethora. Mr. Casey states that he would need to speak to the owner. Agent McManus mentioned that mitigation does not necessarily come into play because the tree does pose some hazard to the property.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 8/20/09 at 7:15 pm at the request of the applicant.
7:18 Geoffrey Wall, RDA (146 Ninigret) Construct wall and beach nourishment
Geoffrey Wall is presenting project to construct a new wall and to bring in new sand for beach nourishment. Agent McManus asks Mr. Wall to present a deed which will show proof of ownership of the strip of land on the other side of Sakonnet Drive beach in which Mr. Wall can not provide proof. Agent McManus recommends Positive Determination because lack of correct paperwork pertaining to ownership. Agent McManus also states that this particular area has caused some problems because of the confusion of deeded beach right access to several homes in the area. Agent McManus has noted that there are several “Private Beach” signs, docks and sheds, storage of kayaks and canoes along the front on existing vegetation. Agent McManus stated that he will be following up on this area because there is
no ownership of this beach. Mr. Wall explains that he has been given permission to clear this property in the past and Chairman Fitzsimmons asked who had give prior permission in which Mr. Wall states Mr. Sherman and he confirms that the previous work had been filed. Mr. Wall also states the existence of a former dock which Agent McManus responded that it is probably a “grand-fathered” dock but he is aware of new structures and signs in the area that have not been authorized. Agent McManus also recommends that the people in the area organize an association so that they can get together in a meeting type forum and decide collectively what is good for this property as there are no private beaches, that the land on the other side of Sakonnet Drive is actually an easement and owned by the Town. The properties in the area do have deeded beach rights, but this does not convey they have ownership.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Positive Determination.
7:21 Katherine & Brown Lingamfelter, AOC SE 43-2533 (65 Seconsett Point Road) Landscape around newly built structure
Anne Sheridan from Duxbury Gardeners represented the applicant and is asking for approval for an Amendment Order to plant vegetation around the new garage that was recently built with wildlife plant materials such as low bush Blueberry around the perimeters and Bayberry. For the modest tracks as in vehicle car tracks made out of cobblestone as an entrance to the garage and planted with a variety of Liriope and Viburnum (possibly a cranberry viburnum). Also, to place some blue stone step and some stepping stones going down to the dock.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Amended Order as proposed.
7:24 Bradley Snyder, NOI (93 Bluff Avenue) Replace cesspool with Title V Septic
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 8/20/09 at 7:06 pm at the request of the applicant.
7:27 Kevin Cayer, RDA (190 Monomoscoy) Create pathway to beach
Kevin Cayer is asking permission to create a four-foot path to gain access to water. Agent McManus states that this is a simple project to create pathway through vegetated lot on Monomoscoy to the water and his recommendation would be that he would like to see the pathway staked prior to any clearing so that he can see how the path will go. Agent McManus also recommends to Mr. Cayer to create the path with the least resistance. Chairman Fitzsimmons asked if Mr. Cayer will have to cut some saplings and Agent McManus confirmed that there will be some cut.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination with condition of staking prior to start.
7:30 New Seabury Condos, RDA (94 Shore Drive West) Installation of 6’ fence
Amy Lipkind from Coastal Engineering represented the applicant, Serguei Aliev. She is requesting a determination to install a 6’ high fence between the parcels. Mr. Cross asked the representative as to why do they want to install a fence and Ms. Lipkind responded that the applicant/owner is requesting a fence and she is unsure of the reason why. Mr. Cross recommended wall and beach repair and Ms. Lipkind says although that is not part of this project they will certainly take that under consideration. Chairman Fitzsimmons asked if the mean high water mark is above the path and states that the plan submitted is very difficult to read. Agent McManus stated that he spoke with Don Monroe (Coastal Engineering) who had spoken with Dave Hill from the Department of Environmental Protections Waterways Chapter 91. Chapter 91 has jurisdiction on projects like this that involve revetment walls and shoreline. Mr. Monroe had stated that the correspondence with Mr. Hill states that the
pathway is above mean high water and can go forward with the RDA. Agent McManus personally states that he has seen the concrete path under water during high tides. Agent McManus agrees that there seems to be two sides with one side saying one thing the other side saying different. He is not saying anything to discredit or doubt Mr. Hill’s expertise regarding the mean high water but in this case, it might be in everyone’s best interest if someone from Chapter 91 comes down to take a look and maybe also to employ the services of a surveyor to accurately mark where the mean high water is because where the revetment wall is, it construes where the MHW mark is. The surveyor should be allowed access to both sides of the wall so that he can do the entire length. At the very least, DEP should be brought in for a site visit to see first hand where high water is. Agent McManus also states that if this application was allowed to put up the fence on a
public access way, it could set a dangerous precedent. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if the fence will be starting at the top at the property line and continues straight onto the beach and Agent McManus points out that the wall in between the two properties, Colony Villa and New Seabury Tidewatch, is shared property and to install the fence will cut access off from between the two. Chairman Fitzsimmons states that hiring a surveyor is a good idea and also would like to request from the applicant a more readable plan.
David Crishner, 90 Shore Drive and President of Colony Villa requested to speak to the Board to address the fact that they had engaged a surveyor to provide proof that the wall is below mean high water but they have been denied access by Tidewatch in New Seabury so a two week continuance might not be enough time to resolve the issue of getting a surveyor out there. Agent McManus asked Mr. Crishner if the surveyor needs access to the other side of the wall and Mr. Crishner replied that the surveyor doubts that he can do the survey just from their property as it is only 20% of the wall so he would need permission from New Seabury to get to the other side. Agent McManus recommends New Seabury to allow the surveyor onto their property in the better interest of moving this project forward.
Serguei Aliev, 94 Shore Road, Chairman of the Board for Tidewatch and would like to state that he had not heard of a prior request to allow a surveyor on the property and Tidewatch has had the wall surveyed before. Agent McManus asked Mr. Aliev if he could submit the plan to the Conservation. Ms. Lipkind has asked for a two-week continuance to see if she can obtain a copy of last year’s survey. Mr. Aliev has stated that they will allow a surveyor on the property if needed. Agent McManus also stated that it would be ideal to ask DEP to visit the area as well and that he has been trying to get in touch with Dave Hill from Chapter 91.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to request 2 weeks continuance to 8/20/09 at 7:18 to consult with agent from DEP and/or hiring of a surveyor.
7:33 Dennis Williams, NOI SE 43-2580 (10 Triton Way) Repair stone wall along beach & replace cobble fill
Norman Hayes from BSC Group addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hayes commented that the plans submitted are also for 16 Triton Way as it is the same project. He mentions that the Board is familiar with Nantucket Sound, the Williams and Segal properties, Maushop Village in New Seabury as the Woodshole Group did a revetment to the west of this area prior but this is a separate revetment project. It was one of the very first revetments built in the Town of Mashpee under a valid Order of Conditions back in 1976 and it was rebuilt in 1992 under a comprehensive Order of Conditions from DEP, SE 43-604. It was built under a 10-year order for current owners to maintain their walls in perpetuity. Mr. Hayes would like to place new toe stones to support sea walls that are collapsing as
the beach has dropped four feet since 2005. They will place 8-ton toe stones in front of revetment wall to shore it up and also to place 50-100 cubic yards of cobble to repair the trench that was left at the ocean bottom when the rock access road was removed two or three years ago. The material being brought in is compatible to what was there and what has previously been removed and will come from the same contractor, which will be 25-50lb rounded cobbles. All material placed on the beach will be in roll off containers so instead of a lot of chips and chink stones covering the beach, causing questions and concerns, it will be self contained. They have gone to MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) and received an advisory opinion that no MEPA filing is required. They also have the Historical, Marine Fisheries, Natural Heritage Endangered Species and the sign off from the Wampanoag Federal Indian Tribe. It is under review with
Chapter 91 because of where the particular site is and because the rock apron and toe stone are below the 3.6’mean high water mark. The flood zone is B23 which involves Chapter 91 and they will also need a US Army Corps of Engineers permit which they have filed for. As New Seabury owns the easement along the entire front, they were required to sign the NOI along with the property owners, Mr. Williams and Mr. Segal. This gives their authorization to proceed so that BSC would have an access agreement with them to repair the sea walls that are required to be maintained under SE 43-604 and its superceding Order of Conditions issued by DEP.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asked Mr. Hayes if they would need to build a road again in which Mr. Hayes replied that they would not. During low tide, they can drive right below the MHW, come down through Maushop Village which they have an access agreement. Division Marine Fisheries will not allow any construction until after the 15th of September and then requires them to be off the property by April 15. BSC will be working with Rock Landing to assure them that there will be an access agreement with them as well, same as they have with Maushop Village and New Seabury, should they go on their property. Agent McManus asks Mr. Hayes how equipment will reach the areas where the level is below MHW and Mr. Hayes responded that they will be building a sand road for access and for placing the big toe
stones that they are going to put in. They will use them as a temporary barrier in the cobblestone area and the trucks will come down and build off these sand roads. The project will be constructed from the west to the east so that the toe stones will be plucked and placed as the project moves to the east. There will also be a filter fragment that will be placed under the toe stones as they are placed into the ocean to hold the sand and that also will be removed. The temporary toe stones will be moved by sections as each section is complete going towards the east. Agent McManus states that he had met with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Williams at the site and they all discussed the urgent nature of this project and there is no question that the work needs to be done but Agent McManus would like all the letters from all parties involved as far as staying on the same page and getting the required permits and Mr. Hayes agrees that he will get everything needed.
Chairman Fitzsimmons stated that if DEP had any comments that would require changes than the projects will have to be re-filed. Mr. Hayes replied that they have the comments back from DEP for Mr. Williams and Chairman Fitzsimmons asks what of Mr. Segal in which Mr. Hayes says that the two projects are exactly the same. Mr. Hayes states that they need the Order of Conditions before it goes to Chapter 91 so that they will have the same thing.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
7:37 Robert Segal, NOI SE 43-2582 (16 Triton Way) Repair stone wall along beach & replace cobble fill
Same exact project as 10 Triton Way and will occur together.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:40pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Carpenter
Administrative Secretary
| 
