Conservation Commission
Minutes of September 12, 2013
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Ockway Conference Room
Commissioners: Chairman John Fitzsimmons, Mark Gurnee, Robert Anderson, John Rogers and Brad Sweet.
Staff Present: Drew McManus (Conservation Agent) and Judy Daigneault (Recording Secretary).
Call Meeting to Order: 5:55 p.m.
The meeting was called to order with a quorum by Chairman Fitzsimmons at 5:55 p.m.
There was no public comment.
Pre/Post Hearing Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: June 13, June 27, and July 25, 2013. Chairman Fitzsimmons noted during the June 27 meeting he thanked Agent Drew McManus for all the hard work he put into the Americorps projects and asked that his comments be included in the June 27 Minutes.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of June 13, June 27 and July 25, 2013 with one change as noted above.
Quashnet River Projects Plan requirements (Stamped)
Agent McManus gave an update on the Quashnet River Projects. He said he had a conference call with some of the partners of the Wildlife Refuge and Mass Fisheries and Wildlife and agreed there are two old concrete weirs that need to be removed One of them has toppled over into the river and the other one is in danger of collapsing. This project would be eligible for grant money from US Fisheries and Wildlife Service. One of Town’s Chapter 172 requirements is to have stamped engineering plans for a notice of intent and the plans that would be sent to the Commission from USFWS will not be stamped. In case we get the grant, this is something for the commissioners to consider between now and the possibility of permitting and whether the commissioners would accept the plans.
Gates. Damage to Moody Pond Gate/newspaper article
Agent McManus informed the Commissioners that there was some serious vandalism of the gate at Moody Pond. The gate was rammed from the inside and the police are investigating this. This was reported to the police, the town manager and DPW. He said he had a meeting with Geoff Spillane (Mashpee Enterprise) who will publish an article about the importance of conservation land, the reason for the gates and why they are so important. Hopefully, this will get the word out there. He noted this is the only gate that is set back from the main road and may have been targeted because of its location. The other gates are near the main roads where there is constant flow of traffic or residences across the street.
HEARINGS
6:00 New Seabury Colony Villa Condominium Owners, 90 Shore Drive West. Proposed seasonal platform and access stairs to beach. Continued from 8/22/2013 at request of applicant. NOI
Resource Area: Coastal Bank, Land Under Ocean, Nantucket Sound, LSCSF
Material Submitted: 90 Shore Drive West
Michael Borselli, Falmouth Engineering, Inc. represented the New Seabury Colony Villa Condominium Owners. He explained that Colony Villas is seeking permission to install seasonal access stairs and a platform as shown on the plan. The proposed work involves construction within the land under the ocean, Nantucket Sound.
The site is currently occupied by a residential condominium development, rip rap and surrounding lawn and landscaped areas. A paved driveway provides access to the development. Mr. Borselli said the residents have to climb over rocks to access the water and it is unsafe. It is difficult to get to the water so an application was filed to build a seasonal structure that would allow them to get over the rocks, down the stairs onto the beach/into the water. Most of the time there is standing water but walking into the water would make access much easier and safer. He said he advised the residents that anything installed there would need to be seasonal. The structure would most likely be aluminum or wood and fastened to the rocks by drilling holes and applying epoxy resin to connect the rocks which would
allow the sections to be bolted and then removed at the end of the season. Mr. Borselli said there is a possibility they might put in an auger at the foot of the stairs. All of the work would be done by hand.
Agent McManus said that the Order of Conditions should include protocol calling for removal of the access stairs from the water prior to a storm event and inclement weather.
There was a discussion, regarding the removal of the stairs and the safety of the stairs. The plan is to be able to remove the stairs manually.
No comments from the public.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue
6:03 Sandra P. Esposito, 25 Sand Dollar Lane. Remove dead tree, prune two trees and install indigenous plantings. Continued from 8/22/2013 at request of applicant. RDA
Resource Area: Coastal Bank
Material Submitted: 25 Sand Dollar Lane
Sandra Esposito represented her application and asked the Commissioners for permission to prune the trees over her roof to avoid deterioration of the shingles and to cut down a dead tree and replant some native plantings.
Agent McManus stated he went out to the property and said that the dead tree should be removed and the property needs to be cleaned up. Ms. Esposito will be planting some native plantings. He said the area of the plantings will be on the side, therefore; the Commission should disregard the wording “in the back of the house”. He recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the public.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
6:06 Jeffrey M. McInnes, 17 Waterway. Pump, fill, abandon existing septic system and construct new upgraded septic system. RDA
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to BMW, LSCSF
Material Submitted: 17 Waterway
Peter McEntee represented Mr. McInnes. Mr. McEntee explained Mr. McInness needs to abandon the existing cesspool which will be replaced with a Title V Septic system in the backyard. Two variances were granted from the Board of Health.
No comment from the public.
Motion made, seconded and unanimously voted for a Negative Determination.
6:09 Catharine J. Brennan, 38 Fiddler Crab Lane, Construct a retaining wall to assist a drainage swale and redirect storm water. RDA
Resource Area: Coastal Bank, LSCSF
Material Submitted: 38 Fiddler Crab Lane
Mr. Dan Jensen represented Catharine Brennan and explained the basement of this property has been flooded many times from road runoff and neighbors’ runoff. The proposal to install a retaining wall would help mitigate this runoff problem.
Agent McManus suggested plantings also be put in. There was a concern that the retaining wall would create erosion as the runoff gets closer to the water. Mr. McManus noted there is a thick patch of vegetation closer to the water with some shrubs and didn’t see a problem. He assured the Commission that he would keep an eye on it and recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the public.
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
6:12 David H. and Donna R. Parsons, 229 Hooppole Road. Completed season pier in accordance with Order of Conditions and record plan. COC
No issue with this COC. No discussion necessary.
6:15 Lazar and Yelena Y. Koyfman, 79 Pond Circle. Demolish existing deck and railing and replace with larger deck and railing. RDA
Resource Area: Buffer Zone John’s Pond
Material Submitted: 79 Pond Circle
Yelena Koyfman was present to request that the existing deck and railings be demolished and be replaced with a larger deck and railings. She said her deck is very narrow and would like to expand it. Agent McManus said he noticed a tree is uprooted and suggested she take it down. He said this is within the 50 to 100 foot setback to John’s Pond. From the deck to the pond front there is mostly grass and some woodchips. There will be no adverse effects to the pond water quality and Mr. McManus recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the public.
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
6:18 Lois B Tanzer, 69 Pickerel Cove Circle. Remove dead trees and prune trees encroaching onto a dwelling. RDA
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Inland Bank associated with Mashpee Pond
Material Submitted: 69 Pickerel Cove Circle
Lois Tanzer was present and explained she would like to take down a dead oak and take down all the beech sapling touching the roof at the left rear corner of house. She also asked for permission to prune dead wood from two oaks at the right rear of house and cut back a swath of beech saplings encroaching onto the roof.
Agent McManus said he recommended removal of two trees, but homeowner may delay taking down one of them. Ms. Tanzer explained the proposed pruning and the tree that will be taken down is clearly marked. Mr. McManus recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the public
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination.
6:21 Kenneth and Gloria J. Liatsos, Trustees, 118 Shore Drive West. Proposed coastal bank stabilization and beach nourishment. NOI
Resource Area: Coastal Bank, LSCFS
Material Submitted: 118 Shore Drive West
Tara Marden, Woods Hole Group, represented the next three applicants. In an effort to save time and energy and to avoid redundancy, she asked if she could present the engineering and scientific data once for the three properties. The Chair consented to her request.
Ms. Marden presented the stabilization project for the Liatsos located at 118 Shore Drive West in Mashpee. The existing dwelling on the property is approximately 75 feet on top of the coastal bank. The coastal bank has been quickly eroding and the property owner has done a very good job of constant beach nourishment, putting sand on the bank and the beach. However, his efforts have been unsuccessful way in protecting the property and this past winter he lost about 25 to 30 feet on top of the coastal bank. The three properties combined, Liatsos, Pinchin and Southwick, have spent $220,000 in the past year and have put 11,000 yards of sand on the beach to try and combat the erosion. This past winter the erosion went into the yard. David Pinchin lost his stair case and the deck at the top of the staircase and
went within 51 feet of the foundation of the Southwick’s pool. Ms. Marden said that the properties need a more substantial solution.
Ms. Marden said they have designed a project which will mirror the New Seabury project which has been a huge success. She showed pictures from the New Seabury project. She also noted on the plan the erosion that has occurred. She explained the proposal will be biodegradable Coir envelopes, fiber rolls, and piles in front with an inch space between the piles. Rubber bumpers will be installed around every other pile to ensure that the piles do not touch each other so that the sand can flow freely from the bank to the beach. No filter fabric will be installed behind the piles to slow sand transport from the bank to the beach and no rocks will be placed in front of the piles on the coastal beach. She said the clients are committed to keeping these biodegradable products covered at all times on order to ensure
a long lasting solution.
Agent McManus stated DEP did issue permit numbers for each project. They cited CMR 10.7 Section 3 and cited CMR 10.30(4) and CMR 10.30(3) and the relevant regulations to make sure the applicants and the public understand that this project should not violate the performance standards. Agent McManus said Conservation is awaiting a letter from National Heritage because part of this project is covered by National Heritage jurisdiction. He noted that the Commission’s practice is to allow the hearing to take place and render a decision, but to delay releasing the Order of Condition until receipt of a letter from National Heritage.
Ms. Marden said the access is through the New Seabury Golf Course which is already permitted for beach nourishment for New Seabury, all Seaside Village Homeowners and for the golf course. She said that it is understood there could be a time of year that the access would not be available.
Agent McManus said from his own personal observation of the New Seabury project it has been working quite well so far and has held up very well. Ms. Marden said it has survived Hurricanes Sandy and Irene. Agent McManus said the Commissioners should take into consideration the New Seabury project and how it has been performing. He said understanding this is an experimental approach and depending on the size and severity of a storm, it is anticipated there is a shelf life to such a project. It is going to need repair, maintenance, monitoring, etc. If the Commissioners decide to approve, protocol can be put in place which allows the Commission to have proper monitoring. Agent McManus recommended to close and issue.
In response to several questions from the Commissioners, Ms. Marden reviewed the plans noting that the beach nourishment and maintenance would be part of the Order of Conditions. She also commented that a civil engineer will be designing a set of stairs for the Pinchin property. She also reviewed the beach nourishment plan and how the excavator will get the sand on the bank. She responded to a question about whether they could use planted rolls on the top in order to restore the top of the bank. Once the project is constructed, she would work with Agent McManus to pick out the appropriate plants and she would look into getting vegetated rolls. She explained that if piles are too low, there will be constant interaction between the waves and the lower part of the project and the piles will be torn apart. The
sand is still moving through the piles because the waves are going in and out. She said she did an analysis on how the beach fluctuates. Ms. Marden also noted the beach retreated 25 feet on Michael Southwick’ property and 28 feet on David Pinchin’s and on 30 feet on the Liatsos’ property. In a three-year period, 11,000 yards of sand was lost along with the natural portion of the bank. She estimated that the top of the bank was eroding a foot or two a year and super storm Sandy took about 25 feet. This project is substantial to everybody and the beach should be protected over time.
Public comment:
Don Cooper, representing the applicants, said they would welcome a Condition that would require that the piles be covered and if planting rolls are botanically possible, they would be happy to do that. Ms. Marden clarified that between April 1 and August 31 there is no guarantee that the piles will remain covered. Natural Heritage may prohibit use of the beach during that time frame.
Barry Fogel was present representing the Tidewatch Association. He commented the timber wall is being installed on the coastal beach and not on the coastal bank. He said this project is being identified as a coastal bank stabilization project. He said DEP pointed out in the state act (310 CMR 10.00) that the project on a coastal beach should not have an adverse effect on the form of the coastal beach. He pointed out that Tidewatch has an easement on the beach and this is going to change the shape. He noted DEP’s regulations do not allow structural engineering projects on a coastal bank unless it is for protecting houses built before 1978; he said that these houses don’t meet that standard. The timber wall has not been permitted by any project that DEP has commented on in the past.
This would violate the regulations of changing wave energy. On other properties, The Woods Hole group has proposed a snow fence which is a much less structural engineered design. The Tidewatch group asked for an alternative to the timber wall and requested that the engineers come back with a project that wouldn’t change the form of the coastal beach.
Agent McManus deferred to the engineers. He stated he doesn’t have the expertise to tell the Commissioners what effect this project would have on the beach. This is an experimental project and if the Commissioners were to approve it, DEP could hand down comments as often as they wanted to. Ms. Marden said DEP reviews every project and they approve it. They reviewed the New Seabury project and approved it and they also reviewed the South Cape project. Agent McManus said that the DEP has put the decision in the Commissioners hands and noted he hasn’t received any additional comments from DEP.
Mr. Fogel recommended to the Commissioners installation of something with a lower profile. He also noted the plans on file were not stamped. He noted the comments he is making applies to all three projects. He said Tidewatch does not object to the idea of a bank stabilization project. Tidewatch would like it the stabilization to be installed on the bank and want it to conform to the standard DEP soft design which would eliminate this proposed solid timber structure.
Don Cooper stated if the Commissioners want the engineering plan stamped, they will submit one. He said this is a bank stabilization project and pointed out if the reason the Tidewatch is suggesting an alternative design is because this project doesn’t meet the standards of a coastal beach, that is incorrect because the performance standards for barrier beaches is the same as coastal beaches. If the South Cape Beach project meets the standards, this project will meet the standards. Mr. Cooper noted new techniques always run ahead of the regulations which haven’t been revised since 1978. He urged the Commissioners to permit the project.
Ms. Marden questioned whether a drift fence would work in this situation. This is a high energy wave environment; not where a drift fence would be installed. Drift fences are put in front of dunes. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked that the comments be confined to the applications before the Commission.
Joe Colasauno from New Seabury felt their progress has been a success and will do anything in order to support the access.
Agent McManus said DEP cited their regulations to coastal beaches and coastal banks and read them again. He said ultimately it is the Commissioners’ decision. It can be appealed and DEP can overturn the decision. DEP is allowing the Commissioners to make the decision based on what the applicants presented.
Peter Browning commented he is a resident and has a vested interest in the beach being protected. He questioned the objections of Tidewatch.
Chairman Fitzsimmons canvassed the Commissioners.
Mark Gurnee said they should proceed with the project and be more flexible in the Order of Conditions in two areas. One, they should require more beach profiles and secondly, concerning the beach nourishment: rather than a fixed number, suggest a number in the initial Order of Conditions and make it specifically clear that the project is subject to review annually in perpetuity as the Commission monitors the project. Robert Anderson said these were good suggestions and recommended to close and issue. Mr. Sweet felt it was a good project and noted DEP has had an opportunity to comment. He also questioned the objection from Tidewatch. Mr. Rogers agreed to proceed. Mr. Fitzsimmons stated he was concerned that the Commission does not have a direct feeling on DEP’s part but if the project is approved, it
can be appealed and DEP could still comment on it. He said that he personally thinks the performance of the project at New Seabury has been very successful and this proposal should be given a chance.
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue on the application of Kenneth and Gloria Liatsos.
6:24 David and Glenys Pinchin, 124 Shore Drive West. Proposed coastal bank stabilization and beach nourishment NOI
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue on the application of David and Glenys Pinchin.
6:27 Michael J. and Dawn M. Southwick, 126 Shore Drive West. Proposed coastal bank stabilization and beach nourishment. NOI
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried to close and Issue on the application of Michael J. and Dawn M. Southwick.
Mr. Fitzsimmons thanked everyone for coming this evening.
Mr. Fogel asked that the comments in the first hearing also carries over to the 6:24 and 6:27 hearings. Chairman Fitzsimmons stated this was agreed to before the hearings started.
6:30 Marceli DeOliviera, 106 Wheeler Road. Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new single-family home NOI
Resource Area: Buffer Zone Inland Bank
Material Submitted: 106 Wheeler Road
Jack Vaccaro (Environmental Consultant) and BSS Designs represented Mr. DeOliviera.
Mr. Vaccaro said the property is a small cottage in disrepair. New owners want to replace it with a new house. It will occupy the same area of the site as the existing cottage with expansion away from the wetland area. There is a small wetland vegetated beach area and a steep bank which is a Town of Mashpee inland bank. The project will involve the abandonment of a cesspool to be replaced with a Title V. There is going to be a second story deck off the back of the house which will not be any closer to the wetland than the current deck. Mr. Vaccaro said he will submit a new site plan to show how the stairs will be constructed. One proposal is for the stairs to extend straight out (which is the homeowner’s preference) or the stairs could be rotated 90 degrees. They will revise the site plan
according to the Commissioners’ preference. Agent McManus said he would like to see the trees flagged. He noted this project is within National Heritage jurisdiction and is awaiting the letter. Mr. Vaccaro said the letter came in and would get it to Mr. McManus tomorrow. Agent McManus noted the vegetation needs review. He recommended to close and issue, pending verification from National Heritage. Option A for the stairs was agreed on. In response to Mr. Gurnee’s concerns about removal of trees, Agent McManus said they were all infested with bark beetle and are a hazard. There could be some specific mitigation plantings planted. Agent McManus would work with the homeowners on the plan.
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried to close and Issue
Motion made and seconded and unanimously carried to Adjourn.
Meeting adjourned 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Judy Daigneault
Recording Secretary
| 
