Conservation Commission
Minutes of August 28, 2014
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Waquoit Meeting Room
Commissioners: John Fitzsimmons, Bud Shaw, Brad Sweet, John Anderson, John Rogers, Dale McKay and Louis Dimeo (Associate Member).
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 John Fitzsimmons at 5:55 p.m.
There was no public comment.
PRE POST HEARING AGENDA:
Approval of Minutes: August 14, 2014.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to approve the minutes of August 14, 2014, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous. 6-0.
The Agent spoke about the trash that was dumped near the Jehu Pond Conservation Area. The Agent found mail correspondence in the trash and traced it to the owner. A person at the address admitted they had dumped the trash. They went out and cleaned it up that day and produced a receipt that it was dumped legally.
HEARINGS:
6:00 Gooseberry Island Trust and SN Trust, 0 Gooseberry Island and 0 Punkhorn Point Road. Proposed construction of a bridge and driveway to provide vehicle access to Gooseberry Island from property located at end of Punkhorn Point Road. At request of Applicant, continued from March 27, and May 8, 2014 to allow time for new structural engineering plans. Applicant has requested additional continuance to October 9, 2014 to allow time for requested soil borings and structural analysis of proposed bridge. NOI.
Given the volume of information submitted for the Gooseberry Island project, the Board discussed engaging an outside consultant to make recommendations to the Commission. The consultant could review how well the Notice of Intent application and associated plans address the performance standards for the resource areas. The Board also discussed hiring a surveyor. The Agent said it is something to consider regarding the Gooseberry Island application. M.G.L. 44-53 G Clause enables a Board to hire an outside consultant who could make recommendations to the Commission. The Commission can charge the Applicant up to $2500 for the hiring of the consultant. No decision will be made until all of the information is in. The Agent noted Town Counsel will attend the October 9th meeting. Town Counsel said
that land ownership of the property is not within the purview of the Commission.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing at the request of the Applicant to October 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous. 6-0.
6:03 Aldo R. and Sandra Esposito, 25 Sand Dollar Lane. Proposed patio area. At request of Applicant, continued from May 8, 2014 to allow time for new landscape and survey proposal. Applicant has requested additional continuance to September 11, 2014. RDA.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing at the request of the applicant to September 11, 2014 at 6:03. Seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:06 Cotuit Solar, LLC, 36 Savannas Path. Proposed renovation of existing structure into commercial space and construction of a warehouse along with utilities, storm-water management, driveways and parking areas. At the request of applicant continued from July 10, 2014, to allow time for field staking on the property. NOI.
Resource Area: Buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland.
The Agent noted the resource area is Quaker Run. He said that the river bed is completely dry on both sides of Route 28, which could change whether or not the property is considered riverfront. If these dry conditions are observed in a 4-day consecutive period in a non-drought time period, it would change the resource area from a perennial stream to an intermittent stream and, therefore, would no longer be considered riverfront in this particular area. Because it would change the resource area, the proposed plans, the filing, and the jurisdiction, the Applicant has requested a continuance of the hearing.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing at the request of the Applicant to September 11, 2014 at 6:06 p.m., seconded by Mr. Rogers. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:09 Michael J. Sharp, 55 Shoestring Bay Road. Proposed removal of hazardous trees. RDA.
Resource Area: Coastal Bank Shoestring Bay.
Mr. Michael Sharp stated he was requesting the removal of three dead oaks and one dead conifer which are all posing a hazard to his property. The Agent noted the trees on the photos and stated the trees are completely dead and in close proximity to the house. He recommended a negative determination. As a side comment, the Agent asked Mr. Sharp to reconnect the gutters to the drywells.
No comment from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous. 6-0.
6:12 Kenneth and Gloria J. Liatsos, 118 Shore Drive West. Proposed coastal bank stabilization (soft solution) and coastal beach mitigation replenishment. At request of Applicant, continued from July 10 and August 14, 2014 to allow for DEP review. NOI.
Resource Area: Coastal Bank, Coastal Beach, LSCSF, Buffer zone to land under ocean.
Tara Marden, Woods Hole Group, was representing the Applicant. Tara stated this hearing and the following two hearings are identical in nature and asked if the Commissioners wanted her to present them altogether. The Chair stated that each hearing would have to be voted on individually.
Ms. Marden explained that they are proposing to install a series of wire-wrapped biodegradable, sand-filled coir envelopes, biodegradable coir fiber rolls, timber pile anchors, zigzag drift fence, secondary drift fence and 500 cubic yards of sand replenishment which is already permitted. They are proposing six sand-filled coir envelopes at the toe of the bank and five coir fiber rolls stacked horizontally above the envelopes. The coir envelope will have one 24” fiber roll enclosed at the seaward end of the envelope with the coir material wrapped around the fiber roll. The sand-filled envelopes will consist of two layers of burlap, two layers of coir netting, and one layer of PVC-coated wire. Ms. Marden demonstrated how the rolls will be wrapped. A zigzag fence and a secondary drift fence are proposed to
stabilize the sand filled envelopes and to trap windblown sand. The drift fence posts/pile anchors shall be installed using two staggered rows of posts that are 10 inches in diameter by 12 feet in length. DEP didn’t approve of the filter fabric so the Applicant changed the filter fabric to burlap.
Ms. Marden stated mitigation plans call for 167 cubic yards per property on the coastal bank and coastal beach above mean high water annually. The Liatsos, Pinchin and Southwick families currently have valid permits for replenishment. Restoration of the coastal bank above the fiber rolls will consist of beach grass plantings. Access for the proposed work will be from the New Seabury Golf Course, which is currently the access used for beach replenishment on these lots.
The Agent noted, in the New Seabury Golf Course and South Cape Beach projects, the DEP recommended pile size is 8 inches. He also stated the notation on the plan under coir fiber rolls #2 that reads: “the fiber rolls shall be placed over two courses of filter fabric” needs to be removed.
As far as the PVC coating metal mesh wiring, the Agent agreed with Ms. Marden that the mesh wiring isn’t going to inhibit the movement of sand if this system becomes damaged. The other issue is that DEP is concerned that, if this system is torn apart in a large storm, there is a chance that these non-biodegradable elements will become storm debris with PVC fragments floating in the ocean. The Agent referred to the comment letter from DEP and telephone conversations with DEP in which they made it clear that they do not want any non-biodegradable elements as part of the soft solutions, specifically the marafi paper and mesh wiring.
Ms. Marden stated there is a monitoring and maintenance plan described in the narrative. The Agent stated this could be incorporated into the Order of Conditions.
The Agent noted the diagram for the drift fence and asked about the contour line near the drift fences. Ms. Marden said that it is the original design. As the sand moves away, the biodegradable material will be covered, but the drift fences will not be covered at all times. The owners are committed to doing their annual nourishment every year and they are committed to keeping the coir envelopes covered at all times, except when access shuts down because of the birds.
It was noted the staircase to the beach was not part of this Application.
Comments from the public.
Ken Liatsos, 118 Shore Drive West, stated over recent years he has lost about 36 feet of the lot and has tried to do something about it without much result. He made a personal appeal to the Commissioners’ rationality, logic, sense of fairness and sense of common sense to approve this project as presented. He also committed if there is a problem with the wire mesh, he will clean it up and do whatever is environmentally necessary. He said that the Commissioners can instill a policing method and the neighbors will cooperate.
Attorney Barry Fogel was representing the Tidewatch Condominium Association. The Association has a 50 foot wide beach easement and wants to make sure the beach easement is preserved and maintained. He also stated more important, in their view, are the performance standards in the regulations. Attorney Fogel stated the Commissioners are required to apply the regulatory standards of DEP regulations and the Town Bylaw. He referred to his letter of July 9 in which they went through each of the applicable performance standards. He stated that the Applications do not demonstrate how these projects would meet these performance standards. He urged the Commissioners to request Tara Marden’s emails with DEP. Attorney Fogel stated DEP does not accept wire mesh and/or wire netting. He said that
based on that factor alone, the project doesn’t meet DEP regulations. DEP’s regulations 310CMR 10.27(3) states for a property in Massachusetts that does not have a occupied structure built before 1978, an engineered revetment or wall or structure to preserve a coastal bank is not allowed. DEP communicated they want the timber pilings to be 8 inch diameter and not 10 inch. Attorney Fogel urged the Commission to deny the proposed designs and to require the Applicant to meet the DEP standards.
Mr. Pinchin, 124 Shore Drive West, said in 2011 the Commission approved the New Seabury project and a similar project last September. He said that it is unfortunate that DEP decided they would focus on the pilings. The Applicants went to DEP with a revised plan and DEP decided they didn’t like the PVC wire mesh or the filter fabric. Mr. Pinchin asked the Commissioners to approve the wire meshing.
Ms. Marden reiterated how she will monitor the project. The Agent stated the wire meshing is a discretionary issue but will prolong the shelf life of the project and will not result in the diminishment of the sand into the system. The Agent recommended a revision to the plan, as well as addressing the performance standards and other applicable regulations in the narrative as outlined in Attorney Fogel’s July 9 letter. The Agent suggested that the hearing should be continued to allow time to revise the NOI and remove the notation on the plan. The Commissioners agreed with the Agent’s comments.
Counsel for the Applicant stated 310CMR 10.30 3 does not apply because the proposal is not a coastal engineered structure. She said the Applicants are willing to request a continuance and will update the narrative and the plan and will submit a letter addressing Mr. Fogel’s concerns.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved, at the client’s request, a continuation to September 11 at 6:09 p.m. seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0
6:15 David and Glenys Pinchin, 124 Shore Drive West, Proposed coastal bank stabilization (soft solution) and coastal beach mitigation replenishment. At request of Applicant, continued from July 10 and August 14, 2014 to allow for DEP review. NOI
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved, at the client’s request, a continuation to September 11 at 6:12 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:18 Michael J. and Dawn M. Southwick, 126 Shore Drive West. Proposed coastal bank stabilization (soft solution) and coastal beach mitigation replenishment. At request of Applicant, continued from July 10 and August 14, 2014 to allow for DEP review. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing to September 11 at 6:15 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous. 6-0
6:21 James C. Atkins and John J. Weltman, 80 Punkhorn Point Road. Proposed construction of pool, spa patio, elevated walkway, osprey platform, as well as enhance, restore and expand degraded buffer zone and replace turf. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing at the request of the Applicant to September 11 at 6:18 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote 6-0
6:27 Town of Mashpee, 491 Great Oak Road. Proposed parking lot and boat ramp reconstruction. AOC.
Resource Area: Coastal beach, LSCSF, Buffer zone to LUO.
DPW Director Catherine Laurent was present on behalf of the Town of Mashpee to request an Amendment to the Order of Conditions which was issued on March 26, 2014. She explained when they finished the project for the season it was brought to their attention that DEP had an issue with the use of the marafi paper. The Amended Order would state that the remainder of the project shall be completed without additional non-biodegradable material and will be in compliance with the plan of record. Also, any non-biodegradable debris from the structure that is generated from coastal storm damage or poor maintenance shall be immediately retrieved and disposed of. Any areas of the coir envelope that become exposed or damaged shall be reconstructed with biodegradable coir envelopes and monitoring and nourishment shall be
increased to minimize damage to the coir envelope . These Amendments were required by DEP.
The Agent recommended that the commission approve the Amended Order of Conditions.
Motion: Shaw moved the Commission approve the Amended Order of Conditions, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:30 Bayswater Seaside II, LLC, 42 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. NOI.
Resource Area: Buffer zone to Coastal Bank/LSCSF/ Coastal Beach.
Tara Marden, Woods Hole Group was representing the applicant. She reviewed the proposed plans and noted they are not proposing the construction of houses at this time. The Applicant is requesting approval of the footprint for construction of a house, garage, swimming pool, and landscaping on the lot. Ms. Marden said this lot has been used as a staging lot. It is a wide lot and not a coastal dune. The Agent noted these lots are being proposed for pools within 50 feet of a coastal bank. This triggers mitigation and he asked if the plantings are based on the conservation mitigation chart. Ms. Marden stated that she would do the conversion calculations.
Arnold Wallenstein, 94 Shore Drive West immediate abutter, referred to the BSS Design Plan and the footage of the pools on the proposed lots. He referred to his letter of August 28 and spoke about the pools being proposed at 37 feet, 57 feet and 28 feet to the edge of the coastal bank. He referred to the Mashpee Wetlands Bylaw 172-7(1) and was concerned with the bank eroding. Mr. Wallenstein suggested the structures are too close to the bank and cited a DEP regulation which says an Applicant should demonstrate that construction would not destabilize the coastal bank. The non-buildable lot is unstable and he asked which of these homeowners is going to be responsible for the top of the bank. He asked if no one owns it, who will maintain the non-buildable lot. The plan submitted showed an area
of beach grass and the OOC didn’t permit the beach grass to be removed. Mr. Wallenstein said he would like the Commission to consider maintaining that beach grass or replicating it. He said he is not against the building of the houses but asked the Commission to impose 100 foot buffer zone but no less than 50 feet.
Joseph Colasuonno, Director of Development for New Seabury, explained that engineers design the homes and if the soils are unstable, they will address it at that time. He noted the Association nourishes the area every year and pays for the nourishment requirements. On behalf of the Tidewatch Condominium Association, Attorney Fogel referred to the area of beach grass. A lot of natural vegetation has been removed and the project should be regulated in its vegetated state. The buyers of these lots will come in with house designs and Attorney Fogel suggested there is no evidence that the excavations for the pools and the house foundation will not destabilize the bank. He asked that the Commission adhere to their standards of a natural buffer. There is no indication of where storm water will go. He
asked that the Commissioners tie together any Orders of Conditions they may issue for this project with all prior orders for these lots with Certificates of Compliance. He said that the issues of storm water, pool water, engineering analysis and compliance with the standards need to be addressed. Mr. Colasuonno stated Bayswater will be developing the lots and any soil or water runoff will be addressed by the Building Department. All homeowners are supplied with the OOCs. The homeowners' association has the obligation to maintain all the way down to the high water mark.
The Agent said that Attorney Fogel brought out some valid points about engineering analysis and referred to chapter 172 section A 3 which is a waiver clause when a project is getting within 50 feet of a resource area. There are criteria that will need to be met to protect the wetlands and an explanation should be included in the narrative. Given the close proximity to the top of the coastal bank, the Applicant needs to demonstrate, to the Commission’s satisfaction, all three waiver requirements cited directly in a Notice of Intent narrative. The Agent said that this is an unstable bank nourishment activity. He expressed concern with it being so close to the bank in the absence of any vegetated buffer strip. He said that having nothing but the staging area shown between the extent of the development and the
top of the coastal bank is a dangerous prospect. He recommended that the Applicant request a continuance.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved for a continuation of the hearing for 42 Coastline Drive to September 11 at 6:21 p.m. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:33 Bayswater Seaside II, LLC, 50 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved the continuance of the 50 Coastline Drive hearing to September 11 at 6:24 p.m. seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:36 Bayswater Seaside II, LLC, 60 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved the continuance of the 60 Coastline Drive hearing to September 11 at 6:27 p.m., seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:39 Bayswater Seaside II, LLC, 66 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved the continuance of the 66 Coastline Drive hearing to September 11 at 6:30 p.m., seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous. 6-0.
6:42 Michael J. and Susan L. Angieri, 69 Horseshoe Bend Way. Proposed construction of a seasonal dock on Ashumet Pond. NOI.
Resource Area: Land Under Water Bodies (Ashumet Pond), Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
Dan Wells, Goddard Consulting, was representing the applicant. He explained the Applicant is proposing to construct a seasonal dock on Ashumet Pond. The dock would be rolled in and rolled out on a seasonal basis. He showed where the dock would go on photos provided. The pond’s mean low water line is beyond the extent of the proposed dock and therefore, the resource area will consist of the bank only. The Agent said the seasonal dock is stored under the deck. The Division of Marine fisheries has signed off on the project and there is no permanent impact to land under water or bordering land subject to flooding or bordering vegetation, The Agent recommended a close and issue.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to Close and Issue, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
The Agent asked if the board would take a roll call vote so he can discuss an issue at Gooseberry Island.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to take a roll call vote to discuss an issue that wasn’t listed on the agenda regarding Gooseberry Island, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Fitzsimmons, yes; Mr. Shaw, yes; Mr. Sweet, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes; Mr. Rogers; yes; Mr. McKay, yes.
The Agent noted he was on vacation last Friday and the last time the Commission discussed Gooseberry Island they required the Applicant to do some structural analysis of the area. The Applicant called the Agent to let him know they will be sending someone out to Gooseberry Island to do the analysis (soil test borings). The Agent gave him permission to do that but told the Applicant to inform him when that analysis was going to be conducted. The Agent received a call from Rick York that there was some drilling in the area. Members of the tribe were also there and were very concerned. Unfortunately, the Applicant didn’t let the Agent know when they were going to do the soil boring drilling. The Tribe contacted Town Counsel and the Town Manager. The Agent wanted to let the Commission know about this
situation for clarification purposes The Agent went out to assess the area to see if there was any significant damage. He didn’t see anything except for some minor trampling of upland vegetation above the salt marsh which the Agent noted should recover fine on its own. The Tribe was concerned that the drilling was being done in a resource area and within land containing shellfish. The Agent assured the Tribe no further activities will be taking place out on Gooseberry Island. The Agent made a note to the lawyer that this was under the umbrella of an engineering study and he gave permission under the assumption that the Commission wouldn’t require additional permitting.
Mr. Sweet moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Judy Daigneault, Recording Secretary
| 
