Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of February 19, 2009
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Present: Chairman Jack Fitzsimmons, Jack Mates, Cass Costa, John Rogers, Jeff Cross, Lloyd Allen, Len Pinaud
Also Present: Conservation Agent-Drew McManus, Assistant Conservation Agent-Liz Leidhold
The meeting was called to order with a quorum by Chairman Fitzsimmons at 6:55 pm.
Public Comment
Representatives from Americorps were present to address the Commission regarding their work in Mashpee. Nicole Frane, a member of Americorps, described the projects to include Wetfacts, a water education festival that educates children about water concepts, a clean up the herring run and assistance with shellfishing projects alongside the Mashpee Shellfish Department. Becca Wolfson, a staff member of Americorps, expressed their enjoyment at assisting towns Cape-wide to meet their needs and indicated that Americorps is currently seeking additional projects. Folders were distributed to Commission members containing additional information regarding the application process for proposed projects and a community report. Heather McElroy of the Cape Cod Commission and member of the Americorps Advisory
Committee was introduced to the Commission as well as Americorps member Meredith Harrington. The Agent was asked if projects were available for Americorps, to which he responded that he had met Ms. McElroy and Jennifer Burkhart to discuss the available projects. Among the projects Agent McManus wished to be considered is the recently purchased Shields property and the creation of trails on the parcel. Additionally, Bessie Bog requires trail work. The Agent will be compiling a list of both small and large scale projects to be considered with the application.
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda
1) Approval of Minutes from December 4, 2008
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of December 4, 2008.
2) Approval of Minutes from January 22, 2009
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of January 22, 2009.
3) MACC Conference on February 28
Plan to meet at Town Hall at 7am. Workshops begin at 9:45 but time will be available to view various informational booths.
4) Procedural Meeting on March 3
Meeting will begin at 6pm in the conference room adjacent to the Conservation Department.
5) Cranberry Bogs
Comments from Mr. Mates and Mr. Anderson are well received and will be included in a contract with a new owner. Agent McManus would like to have a presentation with the military as suggested by Mr. Pinaud. A meeting occurred with Town Counsel and a future meeting will be planned.
6) Vacation
Agent McManus will be out on vacation from 2/23-2/27
7) Commissioner Renewals
The Chair reminded Commissioners to send letters to the Board of Selectmen for renewal. Assistant Agent Leidhold distributed the Commission contact list to the Commissioners.
8) Shield’s Property on Rt. 130
Mr. Pinaud noted activity occurring at the parcel. Agent McManus confirmed that a parking lot was being cleared and the possibility that Americorps may be able to assist as one of their projects. Mr. Pinaud offered his assistance and Agent McManus stated that he will coordinate a walk through.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 pm The Trust of the Cotuit Bay Condominium, NOI – 418 Quinaquisset Avenue (Vista pruning, vegetation control) (Continued from 2/5/09)
John Slavinsky of Cape & Islands Engineering represented the applicant and distributed colored copies of the plans. The property includes approximately 2200 linear feet along the wetland. On the plan, each 200 foot mark, denoted in green, which has also been staked in the ground was used as the measurement by which the applicant hopes to gain 50-foot view corridors. The plans also show the flood zone and top of the coastal bank. The Chair asked for clarification regarding two adjacent corridors extending to the same building depicted on the plan, which Mr. Slavinsky stated is included in the property’s 2200 linear feet. Agent McManus stated that there has been no specific clarification regarding vista pruning for condominiums as the regulations were drafted for single family homes
allowing a 50 foot viewing corridor for every 200 feet of frontage. Agent McManus further clarified that the measurements required in the bylaw place staking at the wetland edge, or base of the coastal bank, and not on the marsh. The current staking increases the linear length which adds to the frontage giving the applicant more view corridors. Mr. Allen questioned whether each condominium building is eligible for a 50 foot view corridor. The Agent has researched the issue and found that one entity collectively owns the land; therefore one application is submitted for consideration for several vista corridors.
Commission members discussed the adjustment of linear footage when the staking is corrected. Michael Talbott, representing the applicant, stated that when he considered this unusual case, and in full support of the vista pruning guidelines, he suggested utilizing the 200 foot and 50 foot corridor. Mr. Talbott noted that historically the Commission has allowed staking along the edge of the water, which is why the applicant utilized the current staking. Additionally, Mr. Talbott stated that their application met the spirit of the guidelines and made every effort to properly identify the corridors. Agent McManus responded that the goal of the vista pruning guideline is to minimize the amount of vegetation to be removed for a view corridor. Brian Wall, attorney for the condominium association,
added that the application is fair and meets the spirit and intent of the guideline. Mr. Wall stated that staking at the edge of the water is appropriate because the intent is to gain a view corridor of the water. Mr. Wall added that although it may seem many view corridors are being requested, condominium unit owners gain less of a view than a single family homeowner because four to six unit owners must share the view. As a result, Mr. Wall believes that this plan is very fair and reasonable. The Chair pointed out that according to the plan, Unit 40-47 has three 50 foot corridors over 230 feet, due to the fact that staking occurred at the water’s edge. Mr. Cross added that he felt the Commission could not vote on the application without re-staking the property. Agent McManus recommends that re-staking occur at the edge of the wetland resource area, as stated in the regulations. Agent McManus feels that new staking would be a minor
modification to reflect accurate frontage and determine better defined view corridors. Agent McManus noted that the Condominiums have a history of illegal cutting as indicated in photos in such locations as the top of the bank, pruned hedgerows, illegal vista corridor and topped trees. Agent McManus further noted that in creating vista corridors for condos, not every owner will have an equal view, which sometimes causes rogue cutting. As a result, Agent McManus recommends that the Commission consider requiring the hiring of an outside consultant to determine prior violations and its cumulative affect on the proposed corridors, as well as to monitor and submit reports regarding ongoing vista pruning. Agent McManus also does not recommend maintenance in perpetuity given the prior violations. Mr. Wall stated that all condo owners are repeatedly reminded that they are not allowed to cut beyond the top of the bank. The Board of Trustees does not
condone any cutting, and in fact, when there was a violation, a substantial mitigation plan was enforced and the cost was passed on to the unit owner responsible. Mr. Wall believes that the cutting occurs because condo owners think no cutting is allowed and have taken matters into their own hands. Condo owners are now aware that this application is being considered, so Mr. Wall believes that illegal cutting should not occur. Agent McManus stated for the record that he has seen no evidence of mitigation plantings on the property, only stones placed at the top of the bank. Mr. Talbott does not recall the specific violations from when he sat on the Conservation Commission but does remember there was an enforcement order. Mr. Talbott believes that providing a view corridor, and offering a more generous concession rather than less generous, would discourage condo owners from cutting on their own.
The Chair requested clarification about the location for the Conservation Agent’s suggestion to re-stake, to which Agent McManus stated the staking should occur at the bottom of the coastal bank. Assistant Agent Leidhold further indicated the location on the plan as approximately along the tree line. Mr. Allen noted that Units 40-47 has strips of woods that are less than the view corridor. Agent McManus emphasized that he is not suggesting the Commission deny the applicant a right to a view corridor but given past history, the Commission should ensure compliance to protect the resource area. Agent McManus would like the staking to be redone and compliance ensured through monitoring. To monitor the project through 4453G, an unbiased consultant would be hired by the applicant to monitor
the pruning and assure compliance, submitting bi-monthly reports. The Chair asked about Natural Heritage to which Agent McManus stated that the project was out of their jurisdiction, but that the Commission should always take into consideration the affect of a project on wildlife habitat in a resource area. The Chair also asked about the Wetland Protection Act to which Assistant Leidhold responded that if over 50 linear feet of bank is impacted, the state regulations require a wildlife habitat evaluation. Mr. Mates questioned the location of the staking if it is already stated in the regulations 10.54 (4)(a)(5). Mr. Wall responded that the Mashpee guidelines are not regulations, with no authority of law, but a policy adopted by the Commission to uniformly consider applications. Mr. Wall does not feel that the guidelines are clear as it relates to condominiums since they were written to address the needs of a single family home. Mr. Mates agreed
that if the guidelines are not clear it should work against the Commission and not the applicant, particularly since they have drafted their proposal in the spirit of the guidelines. The Commission discussed their interest in re-staking and requesting the wildlife habitat evaluation. Agent McManus confirmed that buffer zone activity in Chapter 172 Bylaw is a regulation under Regulation 29. Mr. Wall referenced page 76 in the Bylaw stating that policies are adopted to create consistency. Mr. Talbott added that the guidelines are the strictest in the state and based on scientific information that determines amount of pruning with no impact, suggesting that a wildlife habitat study would be unnecessary. Mr. Talbott pointed out that vista pruning is considered a minor activity with removal of only 20% of saplings. The Chair responded that with so many corridors there is bound to be an impact and that the State Wetland Regulations require the wildlife
habitat study. Agent McManus clarified that up to 20% of saplings with less than 5” diameter can be removed. Mr. Pinaud felt that the Agents should be supported with a request that the property be re-staked. Agent McManus recommends that the Commission request re-staking at the edge of the wetland resource area and the hiring of a consultant to monitor the pruning activity and assess the illegal cutting and mitigation. Mr. Slavinsky requested a continuance on behalf of the applicant.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 4/16/09 at 7:00.
7:03 pm Carol and Robert Graham, Trustees, NOI – 5 Ocean Bluff Drive (Renovate and upgrade the existing dock, remove and replace existing platform and re-vegetate the disturbed area)
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance at the request of the applicant until 3/19/09 at 7:00.
7:06 pm Kenneth Marsters, NOI – 77 Bayshore Drive (Vista pruning and vegetation control)
John Slavinsky of Cape and Islands Engineering addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Slavinsky noted that the applicant’s measurements for vista pruning end before the marsh where the property line is located. The plan identifies 34 feet at the bottom of the bank and 27 feet up at the house. Agent McManus, upon inspection, discovered that some clearing had taken place on the bank. Mr. Slavinsky clarified that the vegetation control is the same as vista pruning. Since the vista pruning took place without a permit, Agent McManus does not feel it is appropriate to allow maintenance in perpetuity. Additionally, there is no longer a great need for additional vista pruning other than maintaining the shrubs at 6 feet, the height required in the bylaw. Agent
McManus also suggests confirming the 34 foot linear measurement to ensure that additional clearing has not taken place and supports a close and issue without maintenance in perpetuity. The Chair read a letter from an abutter at 416 Thomason Road expressing concern about pond water conditions and the threat of eliminating protective vegetation in perpetuity.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue with no maintenance in perpetuity and the Conservation Department will confirm that the view corridor is limited to 34 feet otherwise mitigation will be requested.
7:09 pm Cornelius and Maureen Ferris, RDA – 38 Seconsett Point Road (Replace bracing and decking on existing dock, remove and replace existing platform and re-vegetate the disturbed areas)
Jack Landers Cauley is representing the applicant for this project. It was discovered that there were a number of irregularities during the process of the removal and rebuilding of the home. The applicants wish to remove the platform from the left of the dock on the salt marsh to be relocated to an upland lawn area, repopulating the marsh with plants. Additionally, the dock requires routine maintenance such as diagonal bracing and 1/3 of the deck. No pilings will be replaced. The owner also wishes to rebuild the deck within the three years permitted by the RDA. Assistant Agent Leidhold compared the original mitigation plans to the new plans and determined that plantings have decreased by 17, due to the relocation of the platform and the necessity to compensate for the platform.
Mr. Landers Cauley believed that the original plan identified additional plantings. Ms. Costa pointed out that now the platform would be moved to a location originally slated for mitigation. Mr. Landers Cauley indicated that if the Commission wishes to add the additional plantings, the applicants will be willing, and he can meet directly with the staff to determine the location of the plantings and update and re-submit a plan for the record. The Commission discussed whether concrete existed under the platform as well as the new ramp. Mr. Landers Cauley stated the platform was built after 1978 and any concrete blocks would be removed. Concern was expressed regarding the unlicensed ramp sitting on the ground. Mr. Landers Cauley does not know the history on the ramp but did check on Chapter 91 regarding the ramp, and confirmed that it is a local issue. The Chair stated that all ramps require Commission approval. Assistant Agent
Leidhold recommended that the dock repairs be included on the RDA but the additional work (ramp, mitigation plantings) be included in an amended order requiring conditions.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination on the RDA for the dock repair and refile an amended order for the ramp and relocation of the platform.
7:12 pm Richard Proulx, Trustee, NOI – 29 Hamblin Road (Construct and maintain a pool with bluestone apron, stone wall and relocate septic pump and shed and mitigation plantings)
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance at the request of the applicant until 3/5/09 at 7:21.
7:15 Anthony Ricci, RDA – 14 Pem Lane (Construct 5’x10’6” addition)
Tom Maki was present to represent the applicant on this request. Agent McManus described the project as a small addition to the southern side of the house which is currently occupied by plantings and hardscape. While researching the history, the Agent discovered a 2007 RDA application for a garage addition, which was never built. Upon inspection of the property, a patio and in ground hot tub were present on the property, but not in the plans initially submitted. The applicant had an existing permit for a garage but not the patio and hot tub. Agent McManus requests that the applicant submit a new plan of the addition with greater detail than what has been submitted. The applicant must also plan for mitigation for the disturbed area. The Commission suggested that the homeowner meet
with the Agents to discuss the project further.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 3/19/09 at 7:03 pm.
7:18 Shane Caiazzo, NOI – 8 Chart Way (Demolish and rebuild new single family home with associated appurtenances and bulkhead repair)
Jack Vaccaro of Vaccaro Consulting is representing the applicant. Mr. Wright originally owned the property so a plan is on file regarding the Title 5 septic upgrade. Part of the current proposal includes a septic upgrade. The property is located on Popponessett Creek and includes a salt marsh area and small vegetative wetland. Existing hay bales are set on the wetland boundary to prevent any sediment from entering the area. Mr. Vaccaro asked that the Commission consider the coastal bank relative to its location in the flood zone. The fragmented coastal bank, which is not seaward facing, is vegetated and functions only as storm damage prevention and flood control. Mr. Vaccaro distributed handouts to the Commissioners reflecting GIS land contours. The image depicts the land
with the highpoint where the garage sits and the land then slopes down. The second handout is an overlay representing storm water elevation, with the blue shaded area indicating beneath the water, creating an island around the residence. The property also has land subject to flooding.
The project involves the removal of the existing home to be replaced with a newly constructed single family home. The applicant will also seek permission to repair the 100 linear foot bulkhead. The applicant proposes to move the residence further from Popponessett Creek, currently located 12 feet from the salt marsh, moving 20-25 feet from each side, which will require movement toward the coastal bank. A patio and pool will be located at the rear of the property and as well as a two level garage. The project also includes a Title 5 septic upgrade and will be located more than 100 feet from the closest wetland resource area, other than the coastal bank. The project will be within 50 feet of the wetland area so a waiver is required to allow construction in the buffer zone. The buffer strip
restoration plan has been submitted and includes 156 trees and shrubs to be planted on the property and in the recently disturbed area from dredging. Along the top of the bulkhead there is currently lawn but the applicant plans to restore the area with beach grass creating a dune community. Mr. Cross questioned plans for the failing bulkhead suggesting that it be driven and Mr. Vaccaro responded that the underlying structure was in good shape. The Chair suggested that nearby dredging may have compromised the bulkhead, which they noted during their on site visit. Agent McManus recently spoke with Norm Hayes, a dredge consultant from the BSC Group, who noted that the bulkhead was slumping prior to the dredging and had photographs depicting the bulkhead’s condition. Mr. Vaccaro suggested that among the problems with the bulkhead are the rotting face boards so it will be rebuilt in place with new tight boards with backfilling. Commission
members questioned how the work would be completed. Mr. Vaccaro asked to postpone discussion about the bulkhead so that the Commission could then speak with the individual who will complete the work.
Mr. Vaccaro stated that the project impacts the coastal bank, is a larger home and possibly located closer to the wetland than the Commission would want, but very well balanced in terms of the mitigation which will offer tangible environmental benefits. Agent McManus agreed that the disturbed areas on the lot will be enhanced by the mitigation plans and also agrees with Mr. Vaccaro’s assessment of the coastal bank performance standards. Agent McManus indicated that the coastal bank may offer storm damage protection but that the flood level likely would affect all in the area. The Chair read the performance standard for the coastal bank and stated that if the coastal bank is significant to storm damage prevention, and the bank is 14 feet high, the proposal will remove the bank subjecting the home to
flooding. Agent McManus agreed about the importance of the coastal bank as well as the potential for erosion and runoff control and stability. As with all filings, the Commission must consider reasonable alternatives for driveways and other appurtenances and compelling need for a particular location and its applicability to the coastal bank. As a follow up to the site visit, Commissioners questioned if there was an alternative location for the driveway, if there is a compelling need for the proposed size of the driveway and is there a way to avoid encroaching on the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro responded that several alternatives were reviewed but the configuration of the house did not lend itself to many alternatives. Potentially, the lower driveway could be relocated to avoid the bank, but that was not the applicant’s preference. Further, Mr. Vaccaro stated that it was their view that the coastal bank is not significant to storm damage
control as it relates to the performance standard. Agent McManus concurs that it is a coastal bank only by way of slope definition but added that he felt the driveway was excessively large and further consideration should be given to other options, such as scaling the size back, or a compelling need to maintain the size should be shared with the Commission. Mr. Vaccaro agreed to look into it further. Mr. Cross questioned the existence of an old storm drain and remnants of an old bulkhead. Mr. Vaccaro stated that only a portion of the property has a bulkhead but he will investigate more about the broken barrier. Abutter William Cohen submitted a letter which was read to the Commission. Mr. Cohen’s letter supported the project and requested that the new structure be located 5 feet further from his property in order to address runoff issues. Mr. Cohen requests a greater separation of the properties and intends to work with the applicant
to add plantings. The Commission discussed the request which would move the project deeper into the coastal bank. Steve Bell, an abutter, spoke regarding the dredging and stated that he had photos depicting leakage under the wall before the dredging. The Chair indicated that the existing home was designed to stay away from the coastal bank. The larger size of the proposed home and the addition of the pool and patio will destroy the coastal bank. The Chair expressed concern about the destruction of the coastal bank and the possibility of flooding and encouraged the applicant to consider other alternatives to avoid impacting the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro disagreed about the coastal bank stating that it currently goes through the house. The plan indicates that the house was built on the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro clarified for the Commission that the coastal bank runs adjacent to the house. Mr. Vaccaro emphasized that the bank will not
disappear, and will continue to function as a coastal bank, but may shift according to the DEP standards due to the retaining walls. Mr. Cross questioned the depth of the height of the garage to which Mr. Vaccaro responded that it was 7 feet and a minimum of 5.5 feet. The retaining wall will provide a defined edge that will also allow for additional mitigation plantings in the area. The Chair asked about the pool and patio in relation to the coastal bank. Mr. Vaccaro confirmed that they will be closer to the resource area by 10 feet. It was again suggested that a compelling need be expressed for the hardscaping or consider reducing the size because they are not necessary appurtenances. Mr. Cross asked about the maximum high ground water which Mr. Vacarro stated as 2.15. Mr. Vaccaro asked about the Mr. Cohen’s request to shifting the project east 5 feet. Commissioners responded with concern about moving further into the coastal
bank. The Commission expressed their interest in making it good for the environment and good for the homeowner and encourages further discussion with the Conservation Agents. Mr. Caiazzo addressed the Commission regarding the lower level of the garage and his intent to design for a flow of water if needed.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 3/19/09 at 7:06 pm.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn at 8:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer M. Clifford
Board Secretary
| 
