Conservation Commission
Minutes of January 27, 2011
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall - Conference Room 3
Commissioners: Chairman Jack Fitzsimmons, Brad Sweet, Lloyd Allen, John Rogers, 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, January 13, 2011
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of January 13, 2011.
- Vote to Approve Town Meeting Warrant: There was a motion, which documentation was placed in everyone’s mailbox, to approve the additional item to the town meeting in May to amend the Chapter 172 wetland bylaw to add language of compliance for the regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA). The language is necessary in the bylaw by adding item 172-5-A4. The Agent reads the new proposed bylaw for the record which explains mainly that alteration or relocation to a water course must require notification. It will not include dredging. Mr. Gurnee asks if the Quashnet River will fall under this bylaw and the Agent confirms that it does and it will require a notification.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the addition to the Town Meeting
- Authorize Release of Funds for Dumping of Creosote RR Ties at Bourne Landfill: (Lands Maintenance Account) - The Agent is requesting a release of funds to dump creosote railroad ties at the Bourne Landfill. There is a large pile of the material at Jehu Pond Conservation Area. The charge to dump is $79.00 per ton. Bourne Landfill is a lined landfill and that is the reason why creosote ties are accepted. Mr. Sweet explains that Tom Sterych has volunteered to help dispose of them.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to authorize the release of funds to dispose of the creosote railroad ties at $79.00 per ton
HEARINGS
7:00 Kerry McNamara SE 43-2641 (39 James Circle) Remove existing retaining walls, stairs and walkways and replace with a natural grade and a 2’ stone/block retaining wall - NOI **Cont’d to 2/10/11 @ 7:09pm**
Resource Area: Inland Bank/ Buffer to Johns Pond
Material submitted: Plans to Accompany NOI (4pgs) 12/03/10 MacDougall Surveying
Gregg MacDougall is the representative for the homeowner and explains that the house was built in 1968 and currently has dilapidated retaining walls, walkways and stairs that lead to John’s Pond. They would like to remove it all and grade to a 3:1 slope including a pathway with periodic stone steps leading to the water. At the base of the slope, they would like to put in a 2’ high stone or block retaining wall. The mature plants and shrubs will be saved and replanted along with newly proposed beach grass, black pine, rosa ragosa and beach plum rose. The Agent asks Mr. MacDougall if the stone wall will replace the existing bulkhead and Mr. MacDougall says it will not. Agent McManus explains that this is a unique
project by removing old railroad ties and re-establishing the grade which is a favorable approach in terms of wildlife habitat value. He is concerned with the neighboring property in regards to runoff. Mr. MacDougall explains that there are existing plants along that banking that will be untouched. Both sides of the property have shrubs that will remain and will focus on areas that have previously been disturbed. They will use a small bobcat. Mr. Gurnee mentions that the slope on the side is more than 3:1 and Mr. MacDougall states that there is ground cover and trees that they will keep undisturbed.
Peter Briggs, an abutter, confirms that there is vegetation and trees on the side but he is concerned at the bottom corner and does not think that the proposed transition will stabilize the slope. He states that it is made up of very loose sand and will result in a lot of erosion. Mr. Briggs does not feel that the sassafrass and ivy will hold the bank as well as anticipated. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks Agent McManus if the project calls for more review and the Agent responds that if the property owner, abutter and Mr. MacDougall work together on that one area, he feels that it does not require a continuance. Mr. Gurnee comments that there will be a lot of removal of existing plants and Mr. MacDougall confirms but also states that
they will all be replanted. Mr. Gurnee does not believe that the replanted material will secure the slope and should make the side slope more gradual. Mr. Briggs states that the side slope is very secure if left as is but the main concern is the corner and that will require heavy vegetation and monitoring. Mr. Briggs suggests that he can assist with the stabilization. Agent McManus states that they can add a statement to the conditions; “any kind of changes requires notification to the Agent when/if requires abutters assistance”. Mr. Gurnee asks for a more comprehensive planting plan. The Commissioners recommended a continuance so that a detailed planting plan can be submitted along with a methodology. Mr. Allen recommends using rapid growing plants.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a continuance until 2/10/11 at 7:09pm
7:03 David Bernstein (33 Seconsett Point Road) Pump existing septic components, fill with clean sand/abandon and replace with new Title V Septic system with associated piping - RDA
Resource Area: LSCSF, Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank
Material submitted: Proposed Septic System Upgrade Plan 1/6/11 Engineering Works
Peter McEntee, Jr. is representing the homeowner and explains that they are requesting a Title V septic upgrade. He states that there are no variances from the BOH being requested. Agent McManus states that it is within the 100’ buffer and that the septic will be placed in the front yard which has minimal amount of disturbance to the property. It will also be replacing a cesspool which is always favorable.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:06 Gary Laurino (43 Seconsett Point Road) Pump existing septic components, fill with clean sand/abandon and replace with new Title V Septic system with associated piping - RDA
Resource Area: LSCSF, Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank
Material submitted: Proposed Septic System Upgrade Plan 1/6/11 Engineering Works
Peter McEntee, Jr. is representing the homeowner and explains that they are requesting a Title V septic upgrade. He states that there are no variances from the BOH being requested. Agent McManus states that this project is within the 100’ buffer of coastal bank.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:09 New Seabury Tidewatch SE 43-2644 (94 Shore Drive) Beach Nourishment – NOI
Resource Area: LSCSF, Coastal Bank
Material submitted: Plan Showing Proposed Beach Nourishment 12/20/10 Coastal Engineering Co., Inc.
Don Monroe is the representative and explains that there is an existing revetment in front of Tidewatch and New Seabury Properties. It was reconstructed in 1993 and nourishment permitted and placed. Mr. Monroe explains that they are re-visiting it to do some more nourishment as some of the toe stones are becoming exposed as a result of tidal action. They would like to preserve the expense they went through with the reconstruction to the lower portion and were advised to pursue re-permitting to be able to do nourishment and continually re-visit on a regular basis. Mr. Monroe does not know why previous protocol was not followed. The new management is proactive and would like to pursue this on a regular basis and also is requesting
this project to coincide with the project next door. Mr. Monroe states that they were allowed access from next door which he can provide a copy of the letter sent via email. They will need another permit from DEP / Dave Hill because they are going below MHW. Agent McManus asks how the machinery will get along the area and Mr. Monroe answers that they will build a ramp with sand by extending outwards an existing walkway. Chairman Fitzsimmons questions the interaction with the other project and what will happen with it. Mr. Monroe states that this property is revetted and they need to add nourishment and help stabilization. The Chairman asks if it will have to be repeated each year and Mr. Monroe says not every year and actually the last time it was done was 2000-2002. It’s only been recent that the toe stones have become exposed. Agent McManus asks if the previous Order of Conditions had yearly nourishment. Mr. Monroe says
that it calls for monitoring and if needed, nourishment. The Agent believes that it was based on a requirement of nourishment rather than a monitoring. Mr. Monroe requests monitoring so that they do not add more than what is necessary. The Agent questions that and asks why DEP would recommend a certain amount of cubic yard of sand annually if they thought it was going to be too much for the system. Mr. Monroe thinks that was based on a discussion with the applicant back when it wasn’t a DEP regulation and he also explains that these systems have a trigger point. Their trigger point is the exposure of the toe stone and then they will recommend nourishment. The Agent would like to clarify the old Conditions and Mr. Monroe has a copy [hands it to the Agent] who then proceeds to read condition #18 and also #19 from SE43-1552 which states that nourishment will be placed on the beach annually in the autumn in the amount of a minimum of 1500
cu.yds.; #19 reads that this nourishment program shall be stopped at any time with an on-site inspection from the permitting agency. Mr. Monroe believes that was conditioned like that because they did not do nourishment previously and the wall had to be rebuilt. He continues with saying that their experience over the last 10 years of nourishing in other towns show that it is more appropriate to do some sort of monitoring so that you are not adding too much sand to a system. Mr. Gurnee agrees that it makes sense to monitor a system rather than “overloading” a system. The Chairman states that the Agent should have been notified of the monitoring and their findings.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue
7:12 John & Nancy Cleary SE 43-2645 (19 Tide Run) Construct additions, deck reconfiguration and removal of one oak tree – NOI
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank, BVW, Salt Marsh, LSCSF
Material submitted: Proposed Additions & Alterations 12/22/10 BSS Design / Buffer Restoration Plan 1/04/11 Vaccaro Environmental
Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental is representing the applicant and explains that they are requesting some simple home additions, deck reconfiguration and the removal of one large mature oak tree in the back of the house. They would like to reconfigure the back deck which currently is a two-level deck that runs between the two wings of the house into one level and occupy a section of the same deck with a home addition that extends slightly beyond the deck. They are also requesting a squaring off of the structure in the front of the house. Mr. Vaccaro explains that it is a small encroachment of a new structure beyond the foot print of the existing deck and it is an area of the property that is clearly disturbed landscape with a
walkway. They will provide a narrow buffer with mitigation plantings. They will be meeting a little more than the mitigation requirements with additional plantings. The total mitigation area is approximately 235 sq. ft. Agent McManus confirms that the area is heavily disturbed with a stone wall. There is no impact to the resource area. Mr. Sweet asks if it will be on concrete and Mr. Vaccaro says that it will be on sonotubes.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue
7:15 William Sullivan SE 43-2643 (180 Daniels Island Rd) Construct detached structure and stone retaining wall with masonry steps – NOI
Resource Area: LSCSF, Buffer Zone to Salt Marsh
Material submitted: Proposed Barn/Gym/Boat Storage 01/13/11 Cape & Islands Engineering / Stone Wall Detail 1/21/11 Cape & Islands Engineering
Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental is representing the applicant and states that last spring this residence had been presented for a project that included several additions including a detached building that had been much closer to the wetland than what is being proposed now. At that time, it was agreed to withdraw the detached barn/gym/boat storage building from the plan which allowed the Commission to issue a permit for the additions. This project shows a new proposed design for a smaller structure, basically in the same area but back and further away by reducing the building footprint and sliding it back closure towards the front of the lot. This combination allows them to move the structure outside of the 50’ buffer from the
wetland. There are also some hardscaped improvements proposed that serve as linkage to provide a level surface between the existing residence and the proposed detached structure. There are two drywells for roof runoff and extensive mitigation to offset the increase in hardscaped. Agent McManus reads the BOH comments for the record which state that there is to be no heat permitted for the barn/gym/ boathouse. Mr. Vaccaro states that he is puzzled by this comment as this is not a seasonal home and they plan to use the gym during the winter. The Agent mentions that it is not based on an environmental decision but on the capacity of the septic system so Mr. Vaccaro will have to speak with the Board of Health. The Agent states that this project meets the performance standards and there is no impact to the resource area. The agent also noted that the orders of conditions for this project will not be issued until matters are resolved with the Board of
Health
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue
7:18 Leslie Caffyn (10 Popponesset Island Road) Install underground utilities – RDA
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank/ Salt Marsh
Material submitted: Proposed Sewage Disposal 1/20/11 Cape & Islands Engineering
John Slavinski from Cape & Islands Engineering is requesting to install a septic system that has previously been approved but they need to extend the pipe. Agent McManus states that he met with the contractor on-site to go over the layout and it was mentioned that there was no way around it and they will have to relocate the pipe. There will have to be a few trees removed but the owner is willing to provide new plantings. The Agent recommends leaving the pitch pine stumps and not to ground them.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:21 New Seabury Golf Club SE 43-2647 (0-Off Seanest Drive) Relocate Ocean Course 2nd Tee Boxes 1 & 2 and Cart Path – NOI
Resource Area: LSCSF, Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank & BVW & Wetland
Material submitted: Plan of Ocean Course 2nd Tee Boxes & Cart Path Relocation 1/13/11 BSS Design
Tara Marden from Woods Hole Group explains that they would like to move the Tee Boxes 1 & 2 approximately 13’ & 17’ (respectively) back away from the coastal bank due to severe beach erosion. They have been placing 15-30,000 yards of beach nourishment each year to protect the coastal bank. The cart path is already impacted by the erosion. They will need to place some fill where the Tee boxes are being relocated. There is a man-made water body that has taken on some fresh water wetland characteristics so they are prepared to include mitigation because of that buffer zone. The sod will be removed from the original locations and placed at the new proposed locations. The areas will be re-planted. The
cart path will also be relocated and they plan on leaving the existing path as is because it is a shelled path. Because they are close to a wetland area, they have agreed to use a low or no phosphorous nitrate for fertilizing. Agent McManus states that new mitigation will have to be monitored because of storm damage in that area. The Agent would like to see the plant plan and methodology. He also requests the type of fertilizer that is intended to be used. Mr. Sweet asks why they can not install some kind of device like a jetty or revetment as some course of action to prevent or slow down the erosion. The Agent explains that by placing that type of wall, it takes away the sediment source for coastal beaches and it also takes a lot of money to maintain. The Chairman asks if they will need to put in nourishment every year and Ms. Marden confirms that they will still have to do some nourishment but she’s hoping it will be reduced.
Steve Dunn who is an abutter to the golf course asks if there will be any fences being installed and Ms. Marden states that there will be no fences.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue pending receipt of a narrative for fertilizer usage and a detailed landscape plan
7:24 Dennis & Roseann Williams (Triton Sound Circle Reserved Area Easement) Create Staging Area for Revetment Repair – RDA
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank
Material submitted: To License Repair & Maintain an Existing Revetment Add a Toestone Apron & Replicate a Coastal Beach – Staging Area 1/17/11 BSC Group
Norman Hayes from BSC Group explains that they will be using a Right-of-Way easement that was authorized by New Seabury to build a staging area at the top of the coastal bank for the repair of a revetment that has state and local permits. The equipment will come down the beach one time and will be stored on the Maushop Beach and then be gone. Agent McManus asks if the first house is encroaching the easement and Mr. Hayes is not sure but they have agreed that if they need to move some of the red cedars, they will make sure that they survive. The Agent also asks about the pines and Mr. Hayes says they will not be touched. They will be removing the fence and then re-installed. The invasives will be removed and when finished be
replaced with bayberries.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
7:27 ConCom Fees Increase
Agent McManus explains that the Regulation Subcommittee had performed a comparison reporting of the surrounding towns’ fees and the new fees being proposed is a result of that comparison. The “After-The-Fact” fees were rather random amounts and now will be doubled which the Agent believes will be a better impact. RDA’s, Administrative Reviews and Extensions will be increased. COC’s will add a 3rd inspection fee. The Continuance fee will remain the same. There is no public comment. The next step is to present it back to the Board of Selectmen’s.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously to approve the new proposed fee schedule
- Town Counsel Update on Management Agreement for Pickerel Cove & Moody Pond: Town Council signed off on the Land Management Agreement and the Agent will provide copies to each Commissioner. The Selectmen did have questions regarding the open access nature of these parcels and it was explained to them that the parcels were purchased with state funds and therefore is required to allow access to everyone. Pickerel Cove was purchased with different funds and do not have the same type of deal as John’s Pond, however, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife state that the canoe/kayak launch area will be accessible to everyone. If the Town decides that they want to collect fees for parking at Pickerel Cove, the Land Management Agreement states that funds collected by permits for parking will have to go directly into a
dedicated fund for the maintenance of that parking area.
- AFCEE/Haley & Aldrich Update: Doug Allen from Haley & Aldrich has been working on a budget for the additional research that still needs to be done at the Quashnet River. The Agent has sent the Letter of Intent to AFCEE.
- Update: Refuge Clean Up Day postponed until spring (date TBD)
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Carpenter
Administrative Secretary
***All material submitted for hearings can be found on Conservation Flash Drive dated 7/1/10***
| 
