Conservation Commission
Minutes of December 2, 2010
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall - Conference Room 1
Commissioners: Chairman Jack Fitzsimmons, V. Chairman Ralph Shaw, Brad Sweet, Mark Gurnee
Staff Present: Drew McManus (Conservation Agent) and Kris Carpenter (Administrative Secretary)
Call Meeting To Order: 6:55 pm - Public Comment
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda:
- Minutes: Approval of the following minutes: Thursday, November 18, 2010
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of November 18, 2010.
(Took roll call for following item that was not included on the agenda but needed attention prior to next meeting date – unanimous approval)
- Administrative Review: 418 Quinaquisset Avenue / Cotuit Bay Condos- Vista pruning corridors
There is no one present from Cape & Islands Engineering to present the Administrative Review.
- AFCEE/Quashnet Update: Agent McManus states that he has been corresponding with Doug Allen and they are still working on logistics by doing soil testing for compatibility for the realignment of the Quashnet River as well as working on the timeline for the water treatment plant shutdown for two weeks. The Agent mentions a letter of intent that was drafted by Haley & Aldrich and suggests that if any of the Commissioners have any questions, to let him know as soon as possible so that he can submit the letter AFCEE.
- Updates from the Subcommittees: There was a document in everyone’s mailbox regarding proposed fee changes for permit applications. The Agent will have to get on the Selectmen’s next available hearing agenda to discuss the proposed fees. The Conservation Land Subcommittee next scheduled meeting is December 7 at 3pm and the group will be taking a tour of Johns Pond Conservation area. The Regulatory meeting is scheduled for December 17 at 9am.
- Update Canoe/Kayak Launch Areas: The Agent will be addressing the Selectmen regarding the Canoe/Kayak Launch Areas on December 6th to receive their approval so that they may enter into an agreement with the Mass. Division of Fishing and Boating access to allow access to everyone.
- NStar Vegetation Maintenance: Agent McManus has asked an NStar representative to come in on our December 16 meeting for any questions from the Commission and to also show a power point presentation regarding another round of vegetation maintenance on their easements.
- December 30th Concom Meeting: The Agent would like to request this meeting to be cancelled as he will be on vacation that week. He explains that there are already two meetings for the month of December and presently there is nothing scheduled for that day.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the cancellation of the December 30, 2010 meeting.
HEARINGS
7:00 James Regan SE SE 43-2611 (68 Cayuga Ave.) New 68’ seasonal dock - NOI Cont’d to February 2, 2011
Resource Area: Johns Pond: Land Under Water
Material submitted:
Representative requested continuance.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 2/2/11 at 7:00pm
7:03 Susan & Russell McDonald (6 Canonchet Ave.) Permit grandfathered dock - RDA
Resource Area: Buffer to Johns Pond
Material submitted: Plan – Plot plan / hand drawn measurements; color photos
Russell McDonald would like to get his existing dock permitted. Agent McManus states on a separate subject that the Shellfish Constable has requested a revision to the revised dock regulations once it becomes promulgated that homeowners put their street address on the dock instead of map/parcel number for identification and safety reasons. Mr. York feels that if there is an emergency out on the water and they had the street address displayed on the float or dock than emergency response could get to the address quicker than if it was just a map and parcel number provided. Agent McManus explains to the homeowners that if they were to make any changes to the dock then they need to call Conservation so that they can be advised if the
changes are a permit-able procedure. Mr. Gurnee asks if there were any validations for the dock to show that it is a grandfathered dock. The Agent says that there is no validation but judging by the appearance and that the homeowners had said it has been there for while it can be classified as a grandfathered dock. He also explains that the main objective is to get the footprint on file and that most people do not have any information available.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:06 Donald Shapiro SE 43-2636 (15 Tide Run) Replace railroad tie retaining wall and replace with keystone wall - NOI
Resource Area: LSCSF, coastal bank, buffer to salt marsh
Material submitted: Plan to Accompany Notice of Intent; One Proposed & Existing Conditions and One Keystone Retaining Wall Systems 11/04/10 G.A.F. Engineering, Inc. (Braman Surveying)
Rob Braman from Braman Surveying and Associates is representing the applicant and explains that they would like to replace the existing railroad tie retaining wall with a new Keystone retaining wall. The majority of the work will be done by hand but they will bring in a back-hoe to aid in removing the wall and to bring in materials. He states that the entryway will be down the driveway side initially and then after, the other side of the house, they will remove some of the landscaping. Agent McManus asks Mr. Braman if there will be any trees removed and he responds that they do not anticipate it. Agent McManus states that
the railroad ties are deteriorating and the need to be replaced. It is within 50’ of a wetland and this is the reason why it is subject to a Notice of Intent.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue
7:09 Jack Carter (17 Monomoscoy Road West) Replace septic tank & distribution box – RDA
Resource Area: LSCSF, buffer to salt marsh
Material submitted: Plan – Site Plan 11/01/10 Warwick & Associates
Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental Consulting is stepping in for Jack Cauley who is ill. He explains that the homeowners would like to change out existing septic structures to stronger structures to withstand vehicle load because they are under a driveway. There will be fill placed to provide cover to the outlet pipe that leaves the house to the distribution box in which it will involve the creation of a retaining wall. Agent McManus asks if the driveway will remain pervious and Mr. Vaccaro responds that it will.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:12 Edward Yun SE 43-2624 (11 Ocean Bluff) Mitigation (as required) – AOC
Resource Area: LSCSF, coastal dune
Material submitted: Mitigation Planting Plan 11/04/10 Down Cape Engineering; Plant Guide; Color photos
Andrew Garulay from Down Cape Engineering explains that the original NOI was for a carriage house and this Notice of Intent is for the mitigation plantings. He had met with the Agent to discuss the areas of mitigation and what would be appropriate. The site is a small narrow lot and the area of disturbance is very small. It is a grassy slope that faces Shore Drive and they would like to preserve the good part and propose adding Clethra, Bayberry, low bush blueberry as well as some arrow wood. Mr. Garulay states that the area was not big enough so he had asked the Agent if they could try to do some other mitigation on the other side of the house where there is an area of a very underdeveloped beach grass. Agent McManus
states that the mitigation as presented is “spot on” with our regulations and states that there are some opportunities for plantings on the coastal dune side and also behind the carriage house. Mr. Sweet asks of the public safety along Shore Drive regarding the size of the plantings when mature and they seem to be very close to the paved surface. He explains that this is a primary path for children passing from Popponesset Village to the market place and it is already a hazardous condition because of the narrow roadway. Agent McManus states that the plantings can be kept a certain distance off of the road even if it means lessening the numbers. Maybe they can find opportunities elsewhere. Mr. Garulay explains that these are typical understory plants, the same plants that are there now. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks of the easement with the utilities and if there are any issues. Mr. Garulay says there will be some discussions on the
adjustments to the easements.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue the Amended Order of Conditions for SE 43-2624 as proposed
7:15 Dale Fishman (7 Cliffside Lane) two additions on existing decks and one new addition in courtyard area – RDA
Resource Area: Buffer zone to coastal bank
Material submitted: Site Plan in New Seabury 11/12/10 Azor Land Services
Scott Goldstein from Remodeling Plus is a contractor for the homeowner and explains that there are two additions that fall within the deck area; one is the existing living room and it does not come out any further than the deck and will be placed on sonotubes. The screen porch addition will be the same as other where it falls within the deck area with sonotubes below. The addition to the front entry will fall between the main house and the guest house. It is currently a brick courtyard. Agent McManus states that this property is right in Maushop Village and all work is within previously disturbed area and existing footprint.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:18 Bluffs Homeowners (Ocean Bluff Drive) Install sewer system – RDA
Resource Area: Buffer zone to coastal bank
Material submitted: Bluffs Low Pressure Sewer System – One Proposed & One Existing Conditions 11/2010 AECOM
Donald Schall, Environmental Consultant and Deborah Mahoney with AECOM are present. This program evolved from the Popponesset Inn with an Administrative Consent Order between New Seabury and Ocean Bluff Drive Association. It will hook up 10-11 units to receive a low pressure sewer system which is a 1-1½” pipe that would be installed with a ditch witch or directional drilling. The most restrictive resource boundaries are the buffer zones to the coastal bank and an attempt has been made to avoid work within that buffer zone but they will have to run sections along that area on Ocean Bluff Drive. The existing units will be abandoned and filled with clean sand. It should be a three week operation; the first week being for
construction and mobilization, installation of the main line and begin installation to the hook-ups to the service units. The second week is for completing those installations; tie service in to the main line, testing of the pumps, grinders and panels; and the third week, if the weather is permitting, start up the system. Agent McManus would like to clarify why this is an RDA and not a Notice of Intent since there are resource areas on both sides. He explains that it is taking place in an entirely hardscaped area and the plans provide enough detail with the contour lines. Mr. Sweet asks if all the houses are being hooked up and Ms. Mahoney responds that all but one will be tied in but that one will be provided a stud for future connection. Mr. Gurnee asks if there is only one grinder unit per household and Ms. Mahoney confirms that and also states that there is enough storage capacity that if it should fail, it will sound an interior/exterior alarm.
Most homes have emergency generators and the homes that currently do not have one, have elected to purchase one as part of the project.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:21 William & Sarah Sullivan SE 43-2610 (180 Daniels Island Road) Restore vegetation to construction area access lane as required – AOC
Resource Area: Buffer to coastal bank/ LSCSF
Material submitted: Proposed Landscaping 11/15/10 Cape & Islands Engineering
Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental Consulting and explains that a construction access on the side of the house was allowed with the original Notice of Intent. At that time, it was conditioned that the Sullivan’s come back with a detailed restoration plan for the access lane. They are proposing 13 additional trees along the property line and about 20 shrubs. It is a pretty dense planting and it is intentionally so as to provide a good buffer to the neighbors. Agent McManus states that the project has a pretty straight forward planting list and it will enhance the privacy.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue the Amended Order of Conditions for SE 43-2610 as proposed
7:24 Evelyn Burke (44 Lisa Lane) New title V System – RDA
Resource Area: Buffer zone to wetland/ Isolated Land Subject To Flooding
Material submitted:
Darren Meyer is representing the homeowner and states that the proposal is to upgrade a failed system that is in the bank yard. They would like to put in a new tank and pump and move the leaching to the front yard which will put the flow over 100’ from the resource area. The work within the buffer zone is removing the existing tank, removing the existing leach pit and adding the new tank and pump. Agent McManus states that there is some concern with the Board of Health Agent, Glenn Harrington who had asked the Agent why the whole system couldn’t be placed in the front yard. Mr. Meyer states that the initial plan was going to be done by Mr. Harrington who proposed to put the tank and pump in the back and the leaching
in the front. The owner had a few questions and the Health Agent thought it be best to have an engineer do the design. Mr. Meyer has not seen the basement yet to determine if it’s possible whether the plumbing could be reversed. The Agent’s recommendation is for a continuance until Mr. Meyer meets with Mr. Harrington. Mr. Gurnee asks why do they need to remove the tank; why not just fill with sand. Mr. Meyer confirms that it can be filled. Mr. Gurnee asks Agent McManus why the tank and pump have to be put in front because they do not normally leak and the Agent states that it was Mr. Harrington’s recommendation.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 12/16/10 at 7:03pm
7:27 Mary Macsuga (126 Captains Row) Replace existing deck and sonotubes (additional two) and replace front entry steps and platform with larger design – RDA
Resource Area: Buffer zone to riverfront: Mashpee River
Material submitted: Plan Accompanying Petition of Elva & John Ryan to License & Maintain Dock Ramp & Float (highlighted areas of improvements) 11/22/10 Cape Cod Construction Services; Black & White Photos
Lauren Lounsbury from Cape Cod Construction Services is representing the applicant. They are proposing to remove the rear deck and replace using the existing footprint but the footings are not to the current building code so they will need to be dug to the 4’ code. It will be hand dug and no vegetation will be disturbed. They would like to also replace the front staircase which sits on concrete blocks so they will be required to replace those with the 4’ sonotubes. They will have to remove a couple of small ornamental shrubs.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:30 Amended Regulation 27: Docks and Piers. Including the deletion and amended as reserved status for future regulations of the contents of Regulations 10 (Floats), and 11 (Docks/Piers and Identification Numbers).
Chairman Fitzsimmons reads the publication for the record. Agent McManus states that the purpose of this scheduled hearing is to invite public comment. He mentions the only addition is the Shellfish Constable’s recommendation of the signage.
- Warren Fields 12 Popponesset Island Road: Agent McManus explains the background information regarding 12 Popponesset Island Road and the construction of a seasonal deck within 30’ of a coastal bank. He had received a phone call about a deck being constructed so he went out to inspect and found the contractor in which he then issued a Stop Work Order. The workers understood after the Agent had explained that a permit was required for the deck. Prior to the deck, the owner/tenant had cleared some vegetation on the coastal bank and violation notices were also sent out for that incident as well. The Agent states that he went back out to the property a couple of days later and everything was still the same as the workers had left all materials in the same place. He then returned approximately a week or two weeks
later and at that time, the deck was completed. He also received another phone call from an abutter stating that the deck was finished with furniture on it. Agent McManus then mailed an enforcement order to the owner to come forward to permit the deck along with the coastal bank/vegetation with a filing deadline of June 10, 2010. He states that no permit requests had been received by the filing deadline and as per the Conservation fine schedule under the Chapter 172 bylaw: Failure to comply with Enforcement Order Filing Deadline is a $300/day fine. The Commission then calculated that it would exceed the maximum fine-able offense which is $25,000 for non-criminal offenses so the decision was made to cap the fine at $25,000. The Agent adds that in the meantime, the coastal bank revegetation application was submitted as well as the application to retain the deck. The revegetation plan was accepted but the deck application was denied on the basis
that there was no compelling need demonstrated or any alternatives presented. He also states that DEP has scheduled a Superseding On-Site and he will forward that date out to the Commissioners as soon as he receives it.
Warren Fields who is the owner of 12 Popponesset Island Road addresses the Board. Mr. Fields states the events that the Agent has outlined are [he believes] are correct. He states that the home that is in question is rented and the tenant built the deck without his knowledge. He was not aware that there was a stop work order sent as it was sent to his home address and his family visits the island for the summer but the mail is eventually forwarded to that address. He states that his wife opened the mail and was unsure of what to do with it so he did not see it until too late but once he did, he engaged Cape & Islands Engineering to investigate the issue and that was when they filed the work order for the shrubs. The deck was
already up and he was told that it was a temporary seasonal deck which the tenant has since taken half of the deck up and the rest of the deck will be up by the end of the upcoming weekend. He states that they will file for the permit so that the deck can be put down next season for the renter and he is hoping to be able to move on. He explains to the Commissioners that there was no ill intent other than miscommunication. Mr. Fields says that he has been before the Board and the Board of Health before for a new septic system. He goes on saying that his other property [11 Taffrail Way] was involved with a dredging project and everything was done to code. He explains that he believes this was just a misunderstanding and he would like to correct it and move on. He apologizes for the inconvenience and states that it was not a malicious intent.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks the Agent if the mailings were sent by certified mail and Agent McManus responds that there were two Enforcement Orders including Violation Notices that were sent out certified. This was signed by the trust Kim Casey and Mr. Fields agrees saying that it was probably his wife Kim Casey. Mr. Fields explains that he comes to the Cape on Thursdays and leaves Mondays; sometimes he sees the mail but sometimes he does not. He says he doesn’t really have a good answer why it wasn’t responded to but the minute he knew, he contacted Cape & Islands. The Chairman asks Mr. Fields if he understands the Commission’s position in which certified letters are mailed and signed so it is assumed that the
party involved would know what is going on. Mr. Field agrees and he says the same thing to his spouse. He says he really does not have a good excuse. Mr. Sweet asks if the deck was built at the expense of the renter and Mr. Fields confirms that it was and states that the renters looked at some bylaw and thought that it was allowed under that bylaw. The Agent says that it was possible that they were looking under the Building Department bylaws but not Conservation. Mr. Fields agrees and says he does not want to debate that. The Agent asks if the tenant informed Mr. Fields about the construction of the deck. Mr. Fields states that they did it all on their own but they did let him know they were doing renovations to the inside of the home. He believes that they had a permit for the interior work and that maybe the tenants thought that permit would cover all of it. Mr. Fields mentions that the deck is just 2 x 4’s or 2 x 6’s that was placed down with no footings and it can be
lifted by probably 10 people. Mr. Gurnee asks about the interior renovations and asks Mr. Fields if he knew about those. Mr. Fields answers that he did and Mr. Gurnee asks if there was a plan received. Mr. Fields states no but he had an idea of what was going on and believes that it was built more to suit than an actual plan. Mr. Fields states that he does not spend a lot of time there as once he was able to put tenants in after he purchased the property, he was basically gone. If he realized at the time that he would be in this position before the Conservation Commission than he would have been a lot more involved. Mr. Sweet asks if the tenants will stay and Mr. Fields replies that there is a three-year deal with them and they now know what has happened and what can and cannot be done. Mr. Fields comments that they are an older couple and the deck they put up was very nice as they had just wanted to sit out there and view the ocean.
Mr. Gurnee comments that with the seriousness of the response from the Town that he’s surprised the deck was not removed immediately. Mr. Fields states that he didn’t believe it was that big of an issue because of the way the deck was constructed. He says that he does not mean any disrespect to anyone but it was pleasing to the property. Chairman Fitzsimmons states that it is not the deck itself that is the issue, it is the Enforcement Order. Mr. Fields understands that there is proper protocol when you are on the water and unfortunately they just missed it. Mr. Gurnee states that the response is very important. Mr. Fields says that the moment he was aware of the issue and how serious it was, he engaged Cape & Islands and he also was unsure of what the response should be. He also states that he was wrong but felt that having his tenants remove the deck in the middle of the summer was not appropriate given the way it
looked and what was there; if it had been a permanent structure, then he probably would have had a different view of it. He states that he is standing there saying “mea culpa” and the Commission is right but that’s not what happened.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if any other questions. The Chairman then thanks Mr. Fields for coming in and informs him that he will be notified of what will be decided.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Carpenter
Administrative Secretary
***All material submitted for hearings can be found on Conservation Flash Drive dated 7/1/10***
| 
