Mashpee Conservation Commission
Minutes of February 5, 2009
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Present: Chairman Jack Fitzsimmons, Bob Anderson, John Rogers, Jeff Cross, Lloyd Allen, John Mates, Ralph Shaw, Len Pinaud
Also Present: Assistant Conservation Agent-Liz Leidhold
The meeting was called to order with a quorum by Chairman Fitzsimmons at 6:55 pm.
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda
1) Approval of Minutes from December 18, 2008
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of December 18, 2008.
2) Approval of Minutes from January 8, 2009
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Approve the Minutes of January 8, 2009.
3) Upcoming Meetings
The Conservation Commission Procedural Meeting will be held on March 3 at 6pm. Anyone attending the MACC meeting should plan to meet at Town Hall at 7am.
4) Santuit Pond Dam
Assistant Agent Leidhold confirmed that the vegetation has been cleared by the DPW to allow improved access. Agent McManus has contacted Weston & Sampson Engineering to notify them of the access.
5) Mashpee and John’s Pond Dam
Inspection bids have been sent with no response at this time.
6) Land Steward Update
The Assistant Agent was in contact today with someone interested in being a steward for Besse Bog. The Assistant Agent would like to schedule a workshop for stewards regarding usage of the GIS. Tom Mayo has volunteered to hold the workshop.
Hearing Agenda
7:00 pm Carol Augustyniak, NOI – 52 Spoondrift Way (Demo/reconstruct house)
This application has been continued since January 8, and today the applicant has requested a continuance since the plan is not complete. It was proposed that the application be continued until 2/19/09 at 7:12 at the request of the applicant. Mr. Cross asked for discussion before a motion was made and noted that this was the 6th continuance for the applicant, which Assistant Agent Leidhold confirmed. It was suggested that the application be continued for 90 days and the incomplete application fee be imposed.
Motion made and seconded for a Continuance of 90 days with a $100 continuance fee for an incomplete application.
Mr. Pinaud questioned whether or not the Commission has the authority to arbitrarily change the amount of the fee. It was confirmed that the Commission may impose the fee for an incomplete application as it is stated in the ByLaws. The fee will be imposed for one continuance at this time. The Commission agreed to amend the motion with the maximum specified fee for an incomplete application as stated in the ByLaws.
Motion made, seconded and carried for a Continuance of 90 days and impose the maximum specified fee for the continuance.
A representative for the applicant addressed the Commission and noted that they had only appeared at a hearing in January when abutter issues were discussed. In an effort to address the concerns of the abutters, the applicant had the building substantially re-designed over the last month, at a high cost. The representative asks that the Commission not impose the fee since the applicant is making a good faith effort to address the concerns. The representative further stated that the applicant’s consultants believed that the plans, submitted on Friday, conformed with the requirements of the Conservation Commission and that the Conservation Agent contacted them in the last day or two stating that additional information was needed. The Chair noted that if the consultants had concerns about the
plans being approved, they should have discussed it with the Agent at an earlier date. The representative stated that the plans submitted were similar to other plans and techniques that have been approved in the past by the Commission, such as rain gardens. It was reiterated that it was unfair to impose fees when a good faith effort is being made to resolve the issues. Ray Tye addressed the Commission with his concerns as a long time resident who has repeatedly attended meetings about this application. Mr. Tye is frustrated by the number of continuances and excuses offered by the applicant. The abutters feel that they have a right to the view, and Mr. Tye stated that they have expressed their concerns to the applicant. Mr. Tye expressed appreciation about the 90 day continuance. The Chair responded that the Commission will thoroughly review the application and also wishes to have the issue resolved. The Chair continued that the Agent
was unsatisfied with the recent presentation and provided suggestions to the engineers. Assistant Agent Leidhold reviewed the plan with the Agent and stated that there was missing information on the plan such as resource areas, buffer zones to resource areas and incorrect mitigation numbers, which made it an incomplete application. The Conservation Agent is unable to make recommendations to the Commission due to the missing information. Mr. Cross also questioned the methodology and requested that it be addressed over the next 90 days.
7:03 pm Ceslovas Kiliulis, NOI – 188 & 192 Wheeler Road (ATF tree removal)
The Assistant Agent stated that the plan is incomplete and the applicant wishes to re-work the mitigation plan before addressing the Commission. The Conservation Agent is working with the applicant. At present, the applicant has proposed 2” saplings being placed 10’-14’ apart. In researching the distance, the Assistant Agent stated that the saplings could be planted much closer and that the ByLaws suggest that they be planted in large clusters as close as 4’. The Conservation Department will work with the consultant to resolve the issue but if not, an outside consultant may be requested under MGL Chapter 44, Section 53G from the Conservation Commission to review the applicant’s plan. The letter submitted by the applicant does not include additional, sufficient
plantings. The Chair stated that he feels the Commission should abide by its decision at the last hearing, which will be communicated to the applicant.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 3/5/09 at 7:03.
7:06 pm Daniel LeBlanc, NOI – 9 Tuspaquin Road (ATF irrigation, walkways, new shed, patio and wall)
Assistant Agent Leidhold stated that the landscape plan was not ready and this is the fifth continuance. The Commission discussed continuing the hearing for 90 days and imposing an incomplete application fee.
Motion made, seconded and carried for a Continuance of 90 days and the applicable fee to be charged for an incomplete application.
7:09 pm Gregory Stento, NOI – 155 Popponesset Road (Pier/ramp/replace existing dock)
The applicant is requesting a continuance because they have not yet heard back from Chapter 91.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 3/5/09 at 7:06 pm.
7:12 pm Stratford Ponds, RDA – 44 Main Street (Sewer line, replace & construct leaching field)
Pat Brady, attorney for the applicant, described the plan to relocate the leaching fields for the wastewater treatment plant. The leaching fields are located outside the buffer zone so there will be no impact within the 100 foot buffer zone of the wetlands. A small pipe will be located within the buffer zone but not within 50 feet of the vegetation. Grading will be required within the buffer zone along with the removal of some trees. Silt screens and hay bales will be installed surrounding the work areas to prevent any runoff, as noted on the plan. Areas of disturbance will be replanted. Steve Silva of Coler and Colantonio provided past information regarding the wastewater treatment facility and stated that during the renewal process in 2006, it was determined that a more stringent
level of treatment was required which the current plant can not fulfill. The current treatment plant pumps into pits located in Zone 2. Two to three years later, working with the DEP and another engineering firm, it was decided to pipe and pump effluent to a location outside of Zone 2. Mr. Silva’s firm was contacted to assist with the project and Mr. Silva identified some errors in the plan, particularly as it relates to the location of the wetlands. In his opinion, the wetland line is flagged accurately but previous plans do not include the information. Corrections have been made on the current plans with a redesigned area in consultation with the Planning Board’s engineer and the DEP. The new plan keeps the project out of the 100 foot buffer zone. Although the construction will be outside of the buffer, it will be necessary to do some grading within it. The Assistant Agent reviewed the delineation and noted that the
flags were not numbered on the plan and recommended they come back with an ANRAD or RDA to confirm the delineation, in case they needed to do more work in the area. The Assistant Agent also questioned where the culvert pipe meets the wetland. This area will be added to the delineation. The Assistant Agent recommended that the delineation not be approved in this filing, but it does not affect the project. Mr. Silva offered a new plan that would include the numbers.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination with the condition that the delineation not be approved under this filing.
7:15 Cotuit Bay Condo, NOI – 418 Quinaquisset Avenue (Vista pruning, vegetation control)
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 2/19/09 at 7:00 pm.
7:18 John Mates, NOI – 53 Hooppole Road (ATF seasonal dock)
The Assistant Agent stated that the DEP number is not yet available, and Natural Heritage has not had 30 days. Mr. Mates questioned scheduling a hearing when it was submitted only one week ago and asked why the hearing would be scheduled prior to the 30 days required by Natural Heritage. The Commission agreed that it should be scheduled at a later date.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Continuance until 3/5/09 at 7:09 pm.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn at 7:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer M. Clifford
Board Secretary
| 
