Conservation Commission
Minutes of November 15, 2012
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall - Conference Room 2
Commissioners: Chairman John Fitzsimmons, Vice Chairman Ralph Shaw, Brad Sweet, Mark Gurnee, Patty Jalowy, and John Rogers
Staff Present: Drew McManus (Conservation Agent) and Kris Carpenter (Administrative Secretary)
Call Meeting To Order: 5:55 pm
The meeting was called to order with a quorum by Chairman Fitzsimmons at 5:55 pm.
There was no public comment.
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda:
- Minutes: Approval of the following minutes: September 13, 2012 & October 11, 2012
- Land Stewardship Updates:
- “Guest Lecture” series for the Land Steward Program which will be open to the general public. The Americorp volunteer is working on recruiting guest lecturers to talk about aquaculture and harvesting of oysters and also a person that specializes in identifying trees by the type of bark. They are working on other guest lecturers as well.
- December 10th for a trail cleanup day in the Mashpee River Woodlands.
- The Fall newsletter has been issued which covers everything that was done last year and this year. The newsletter will be updated quarterly.
- Will be organizing a cleanup day for the John’s Pond Conservation area.
- Mass Fish/Wildlife NEC Habitat Management Plan: Discussion on Clearing Within the Wetland Buffer – Agent McManus explains that the conditions written for Dave Scarpitti from Mass. Fish & Wildlife for the New England Cottontail application previously submitted addressed specific areas of selective pruning and clearing within the 100’ wetland buffer. The agent has had several discussions with Mr. Scarpitti and is asking where the Commission stands with the new information that has been submitted. Mr. Scarpitti had explained that clearing/pruning into the 100’ buffer areas is basically the same as the reason for clearing upland; the vegetation has reached a stage where it is no longer a nutritional value for New England Cottontail or other species. Mr. Scarpitti would like to treat these areas because they are
very productive and re-growth is increased more than the upland areas. Agent McManus recommends the allowance but to carefully monitor the work with weekly updates from Mr. Scarpitti.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the project as proposed with close monitoring by agent
HEARINGS
6:00 Save Poppy Bay (0 Wading Place Road) Modifications to stabilize the coastal dune via a wooden zigzag sand drift fence - AOC **Cont’d to December 13 @ 6:00pm**
Resource Area:
Material submitted: Proposed Barrier Beach Dune Overwash Stabilization (Sand Drift Fence and Revegetation Plan) 3/15/12 BSC Group
[2:35] The applicant has requested a continuance to December 13, 2012.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to continue to December 13, 2012 at 6:00pm
6:03 Marian Oost-Lievense (2 Kim Path) Construct a 38’ x 4’ addition and new Title 5 Septic system - RDA **Continued from October 25, 2012**
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Freshwater Wetland
Material submitted: Site Plan 11/7/12 J.E. Landers-Cauley / Cross Section 11/8/12 J.E. Landers-Cauley
[8:13] Marian Oost-Lievense explains that they would like to add additional living space to an existing dwelling by expanding the kitchen area in the back of the house approximately 4’4” x 14-15’ and add a 3’4” area continuing down the back of the house for two existing bedrooms. This project also includes putting in a new raised denitrification septic system in the front of the house. Agent McManus reads the Board of Health comments and states that the area is entirely pre-disturbed.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
6:06 Kathleen Impey **043-2712** (90 Captains Row) Construct a new pier, ramp and float and also to replace an existing concrete block wall with a fieldstone wall in the same footprint – NOI **Continued from October 25, 2012**
Resource Area: Land Under Ocean, Coastal Bank, Coastal Beach, Land Containing Shellfish, LSCSF
Material submitted: Proposed Pier Ramp & Float 11/09/12 Cape & Islands Engineering
[12:46] Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental and John Slavinski from Cape & Islands Engineering are representing the applicant. Mr. Vaccaro explains that the proposed dock is approximately 25’ long with 18 piles driven into the substrate. The walkway will extend from the existing grade at the top of the seawall to a 12’ long ramp that extends to the 6’ x 25’ float. The Shellfish Constable is requiring float stops to keep it at 2’ from the bottom. The proposed field stone wall is being
reconstructed in the same foot print as the existing concrete block wall. Agent McManus asks what the time frame is for rebuilding the wall and Mr. Vaccaro states approximately 2-3 days. The agent recommends installing some kind of erosion control during the wall rebuild and Mr. Vaccaro says that he will place straw wattles in the area. The Harbormaster requires DEP # and address affixed to all sections of the pier, ramp and float.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue
6:09 Lionel Pinsonneault **043-2685** (92 Cayuga Avenue) Install a low profile retaining wall and beach sand nourishment in perpetuity – AOC
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Pond Front (Johns Pond / Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
Material submitted: Plot Plan Proposed Seasonal Dock 10/16/12 Falmouth Engineering
[21:38] Michael Borselli from Falmouth Engineering is representing the applicant who is requesting an amendment to the existing Order of Conditions. The proposed amendment to the project is to create a small beach area for personal recreation at the bottom of an inland bank which will involve bringing in sand and constructing a low profile wall. Agent McManus asks how they plan to bring the sand in and Mr. Borselli states that Mr. Pinsonneault will use the public landing with a small barge to deliver the sand and stone. Mr. Borselli says that they will install the sand first and then construct the wall which the agent states that they should stake the area so that sand does not end up in the water. Mr. Borselli states it would be reasonable to condition the project to construct the wall at the same time or right after the sand is deposited.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue
6:12 Aris Pappas (387 Monomoscoy Road) Install a pool & patio, retaining wall & fence, relocate existing mitigation plantings and relocate & maintain a four foot path - RDA **Cont’d to November 29 @ 6:00pm**
Resource Area:
Material submitted:
[30:20] The applicant has requested a continuance to November 29, 2012.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to continue to November 29, 2012 at 6:00pm
6:15 Eileen Tye (180 Waterway) Repair/replace existing pool apron in same footprint - RDA
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank/Land Under Ocean
Material submitted: Site Plan 1992 (handrawn) Owner
[30:51] Eileen Tye explains that the existing concrete is badly cracked and would like to replace it in the same footprint. Agent McManus states that the project is straight forward but asks Ms. Tye about the accessibility. Ms. Tye says there is an existing fence area that was damaged from the storm that they need to repair but will use it as an access for the project.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
6:18 Stanton Healy (98 Summersea Road) Remove three hazardous trees - RDA
Resource Area: Coastal Bank, Buffer Zone to BVW
Material submitted: Proposed Site Plan 2004 (hand noted) Connolly Tree
[33:20] Joe Connolly from Connolly Tree Services is representing for the homeowner and explains that there are three pine trees that are leaning towards the dwelling and are showing bark beetle activity which has weakened the trees.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination
- Mashpee Waterways Mashpee River Dredge Proposal
Ken Bates from the Waterways Commission explains that the project is a viable project dollars and sense wise because it is a place to put the sediment from dredging of the Mashpee River. Mr. Sweet would like to know what the purpose of the dredging is and Mr. Bates states that it is for the purpose of safe navigation. Chairman Fitzsimmons asks if it has been endorsed by the Harbormaster and Mr. Bates says that he does not know except that the Harbormaster is fully aware of the project as he is on the Waterways Commission. Mr. Bates states that he has not sought endorsements by anyone except for the ability to work with the Conservation Commission to protect the town and the Waterways Commission.
Mr. Bates states that he is present to address the questions that were brought up at the last meeting. The first question asked was if the area of depression has to be capped and Mr. Bates says that they can complete the project in one or two years. They plan to scrape off the berm around the site as a cover which he says was recommended a de-watering time of 3-6 months before the site is covered. Mr. Bates states that verbally he was told that he should cap but since the last meeting, he has had other conversations which informed him that there is no requirement to cap it unless the Commission wants them to cap it. Mr. Bates feels that they might have reached a conclusion after speaking to the tribe in which they lay some kind of material across the area so they could plant the area as a meadow with
possible apple trees (for the deer). Chairman Fitzsimmons states that they were trying to establish whether or not this project could get the approval of the Conservation Commission before trying to figure out how it was going to be done. The Chairman states that he is very much opposed to this project as he does not want the muck on conservation lands. Chairman Fitzsimmons would like to ask the other commissioners how they feel about it before moving to how it will be done. Mr. Sweet says that his basic question is not how it’s being done but why because he doesn’t understand the navigational issues. Mr. Sweet asks how many larger boats would be moved to the northern end of the Mashpee River into a pristine area which is navigable for short distances by smaller boats but do they want motor craft to navigate up to an area of outstanding bird and natural wildlife. Mr. Sweet asks if there is a need for residents of Mashpee to travel up that
river. Mr. Bates explains that he has a small boat and has been fishing in the area for a long time but it has gotten to the point where he can’t get up into the area two hours before high tide and two hours after high tide. During this time, there was a shoal building across the entrance to the Mashpee River; even now, there are small boats having difficulty getting into the river (except for the two hours before and after high tide). Mr. Bates says that they would only be dredging as far north as where the barge would be brought. The Chairman says that he has no issues with dredging the river but he does not want the mucky spoils on conservation lands. Mr. Gurnee says they are both conservation issues as the pristine habitat is to be protected as well as the lands. Agent McManus states that recreation is one of the values that is protected under the bylaw but recreational proposals need to be looked at from a benefit stand point in not only
terms of environmental but what segment of the population is it benefiting? This specific parcel of land is very popular and people are very passionate about it; they like it the way it is. It needs to be considered as to how much of the population is it benefiting and the Commission should be prepared to answer that. Mr. Bates states that he sees it as a benefit to the parcel property as there is a depression in the land that is not usable and it can accommodate the sediment from the dredging which would make a level usable area for recreation.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks the other commissioners what they think:
Vice Chairman Shaw says he feels the benefits do not justify project.
Mr. Gurnee says that he does not know why cost is an issue and the concern should be about the area such as what will happen with the depression; what will grow there; how it will be restored if it can be restored; and improving access to the upper river which he says he is not sure should be done. Mr. Gurnee states that he would be willing to let the project go ahead.
Ms. Jalowy states that she is having a hard time understanding it because the land was put into conservation for a reason and now it is being proposed to modify it. She would like to make sure the allowances and restrictions are clear. Agent McManus says that the project would need to get state approval and also to make sure the language is clear because Article 97 states that if a vegetated area is disturbed or manipulated than another area would need to be supplied to offset it. Ms. Jalowy says that her other concern is the question of how to return it to a woodland area and if it fails than it would become a mess.
Mr. Rogers states that he does not have enough facts such as whether it will be toxic or leave an odor. Mr. Bates states that based on the core samples that were done 10 years ago it would be toxic but there would salinity added which would be washed out naturally in a very short period of time. Mr. Gurnee says that Mr. Bates listed a number of upland disposal sites for review but no reviews have been submitted and he would like to know what happened. Mr. Bates says the question was if there were any other projects done like this and he found one in Rhode Island with the Core of Engineers which Mr. Bates had printed out a paragraph to present tonight. The paper had the project manager’s name and phone number which the Chairman says it would be not be possible to duplicate this project with the
same specific conditions.
Mr. Bates states that the reason he is here was because they are sending out an RFP and had included the Conservation Commission as a factor in which the consultant would have to go by the conceived guidelines. Mr. Bates says that he thought the Commission would review it and come up with statements that would be added to the RFP to protect the town, Conservation Commission and Waterways Commission. Mr. Sweet mentions that an Order of Conditions can state what the property should look like when finished. Agent McManus says that an Order of Conditions only apply to the wetland jurisdiction and not upland areas. Mr. Gurnee states that it is undeterminable of what will become of the area or what it will look like if the project were happen. The Chairman says that he does not think it would be
possible to determine that because it is unknown if the muck is toxic or odorous. The land was given to Conservation as a Trust to take care of it and not be spoiled by muck. Ms. Jalowy asks if there is town water through there and Mr. Bates says he believes that there is not; all private wells. Ms. Jalowy states that there could be the possibility of contamination to the private wells.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks the Board members if they are supportive or not supportive:
John Rogers – Neutral.
Brad Sweet – Not supportive but says he does not feel there is enough of a demand from the town or the residents that would warrant the project. Subsequently, there are a lot of conservation issues still open for the disposal site.
Mark Gurnee – Does not support it.
Chairman Fitzsimmons asks for a motion.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to not support using the conservation land as a disposal for dredge spoils
- Regulatory Subcommittee (Mitigation Regulation) – Mary LeBlanc attended the last meeting to assist/consult with the mitigation requirements. Agent McManus explains that one of the things that were missing was specific wording to different scenarios.
- Re-numbering of sections.
- The formatting was revised to show sections A – K to separate the different sections as a point of reference.
Sections:
- Section F – If the mitigation requirement exceeds the land available for plantings than an option for the applicant could be to pay fees in lieu of offsite mitigation. Other alternatives would be to revise the plan to a smaller scope project or possible denial of project. Fees would be paid to a Conservation Trust Fund dedicated for improvements of conservation lands in Mashpee. Fees will be calculated at $3.50 per square foot and would be paid at the time of recording of the Order of Conditions. Such payments will be non-refundable.
- Section H – The Commission encourages the removal of invasive species from wetland resource areas and associated buffer zones. Requests to remove invasive species shall require a site visit with the agent to evaluate the presence of invasive species and to determine the filing based on the size and scope of the removal and the proximity to wetland resource areas.
- Section I – Hazardous tree removal. Permitting is required but no mitigation.
- Section J – Best practices which is based on residential feedback. The Commission shall exercise the preference of pervious surface type of hardscape wherever possible and practical within the 50’-100’ buffer but shall be located no closer than 10’ from the landward limit of the 50’ buffer zone so that the attending construction, landscaping and maintenance activities may proceed without impact to the 50’ buffer zone.
Agent McManus asks the Commissioners to review the revisions and additions and submit any feedback. There will be a public hearing to adopt them. Mr. Sweet suggests the mitigation plans be submitted by certified or qualified landscapers. Chairman Fitzsimmons says that visiting consultants to the subcommittee meetings is a good idea. Agent McManus states that one question that needs to be reviewed is whether the mitigation plan be completely separate from the engineered plan because the engineered plans are too generic.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 pm. [1:14:29]
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Carpenter
Administrative Secretary
***All material submitted for hearings can be found on Conservation Flash Drive dated 7/1/10***
| 
