Conservation Commission
Minutes of October 9, 2014
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Waquoit Meeting Room
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: John Fitzsimmons, Bud Shaw, Brad Sweet, Mark Gurnee, Dale McKay and Robert Anderson.
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: September 11, 2014.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to approve the minutes of September 11, 2014, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous. 6-0.
Request for Administrative Approval/SE 43-2753: 81 Seconsett Point Road – minor modifications to bulkhead. Mark Burtis, Little River Boat Yard.
Mark Burtis explained that the Commission has already approved this wall and he was proposing to improve it by making it a Navy wall. It is currently a freestanding wall. He said the modifications would make it more structurally sound and the engineer has approved it. The footprint has not been altered. The Agent stated this is a minor change to make it more secure and recommended an approval of the Administrative Request.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to approve the Administrative Request, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
Request for Administrative Approval/SE 43-2759: 72 Spoondrift Way – relocate pool pumps. Jennifer Malila, Landscape Architect.
Jennifer Malila was requesting an Administrative Approval for a project under construction that was previously approved by the Commissioners. She stated that the Architect asked if the pumps can be moved to a spot just behind the retaining wall. The Agent stated they came up with an area that was part of the mitigation plantings. There is room on the other side of the pool where the mitigation plantings were proposed to be. There is an opportunity to move the mitigation plantings to another area of the site closer to the buffer zone. The Agent recommended approval of the Administrative Request. It was noted that the change of the mitigation plantings shall be noted in the narrative.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to approve the Administrative Request, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous. 6-0.
HEARINGS:
6:00 Gooseberry Island Trust and SN Trust, 0 Gooseberry Island 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. Continued from 8/28/2014 to allow time for soil boring and structural analysis of proposed bridge. NOI
Resource Area: Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow (Velocity and A-Zones), Land Under Ocean, Salt Marsh, Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, Coastal Bank, Tidal Flats, Buffer Zone to Rare Species Habitat (Priority and Estimated NHESP). Land Containing Shellfish.
Attorney Brian Wall, representing the Applicant, stated this hearing was continued to this evening to allow time for the Applicant to retain a structural engineer and submit information to the Commission that the bridge will withstand storm events. The engineer has not yet provided them with the information requested. Attorney Wall said he will also be asking for a continuance because he has not had an opportunity to review the letter submitted by the Tribe’s Consultant, Horsley and Witten of Sandwich. He said he understands that the Commission is considering hiring a peer review at the expense of the Applicant to review the project. Although he requests a continuance of the hearing, Attorney Wall asked if the board would address the peer review component.
At a previous meeting, the Commission discussed hiring an outside consultant under M.G.L. 44 Section 53G, which the Agent agrees the Commission needs to consider. He also recommended the Commissioners give the abutters’ the opportunity to present their concerns tonight. Once that is completed, the Commissioners could decide how they want to proceed in the matter of hiring an outside consultant.
Mr. Gurnee emphasized issues regarding land ownership are not Conservation issues. He said that Conservation issues are regulated resource areas and what the Commission can do to protect those resource areas within the performance standards. He wanted to make sure focus is on what Conservation deals with and let the attorneys deal with other issues that are germane to the project.
Amy Ball, Horsley and Witten, spoke on behalf of the Wampanoag Tribe. She said they believe that this project is not approvable and should be denied. There are numerous documents that have brought into question the property ownership and whether or not the project is water dependent. This is a critical point for the Commission to consider because it changes the standards by which a project is reviewed. The standards for a water dependent project are relaxed to the point that an Applicant does the best he can and does the minimum required to protect the interest. If it is not considered a water dependent project, the standard gets elevated to a no adverse impact. Ms. Ball said that she believes that the Applicants have not demonstrated that the project will have no adverse impact. The Tribe‘s
interest is specific to land containing shellfish. The Tribe has a private grant to harvest shellfish in the area and is concerned that a private bridge crossing a channel and traversing a shellfish area would have an adverse effect. Ms. Ball pointed out that this project site has a wetlands restriction order which is not being addressed. The Tribe believes the project does not demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact on the shellfish beds. She claimed that the Applicants have segmented the project in a way that does not allow the Commission to see the big picture. She said that the Commission is being asked to review a private bridge and a driveway to an island with no destination. She asked the Commission to consider that construction of a single family dwelling would pose numerous additional issues that could affect water quality and land containing shellfish.
In answer to a question of what is the definition of adverse impact, Ms. Ball said no adverse impact means negligible, not to be considered. It would not have an impact.
Bob Daler, Tetra Tech, referred to his letter he submitted to the commission in June and stated he objects to the continuance. He said this project should not be approved. He remarked that the Applicants are driving piles crossing public water and grounds for private purposes. In his opinion, Mr. Daler said that the bridge is not water dependent; that it is not permissible under the wetlands regulation; that it has impacts that are not mitigated; and it places a structure in waters of the Commonwealth. He referred to an illustration attached to his letter. Mr. Daler said the bridge requires fill for the abutment on both ends. The fill sits in a road that will block access to the water. The mitigation suggested is not 1:1. This will have an impact on shellfisheries and there is no proposed mitigation. He said that the whole idea of the Wetlands Act is to protect the resources capacity.
Jessie Little Doe-Baird, Vice Chair Wampanoag Tribe, read from a prepared statement which stated the Tribe has submitted in writing its strenuous opposition to the bridge project. She said the Tribe received a shellfish grant in 1977 from the town and it was approved by the legislation, which remains in effect until 2027. The Tribe’s aquaculture work is vital and produces a valuable resource for the Town and the coast line. The area is considered a critical component of the town’s EPA merit award to reduce nitrogen in the Popponesset estuary and the aquaculture farm serves as an economic engine for the Tribe and its citizens. Massachusetts law is clear that the shellfish license provides the Tribe exclusive rights to the shellfish beds. The Tribe is entitled to exclusive use of the lands, water, flats and
creeks. The Massachusetts law also allows the licensee to seek damages to anyone who disturbs the shellfish farms. If the bridge is constructed, the shellfish beds will suffer significant and long term environmental impacts. The Applicant has already conducted drilling without the Tribe’s consent. Ms. Ball said that the Tribe does not consent to any activity that will disturb the shellfish beds. She referred to the environmental reports submitted. They result in the same conclusion - the Applicant does not and cannot conform to the performance standards and the Application must be denied. The bridge to nowhere will be a significant cost to taxpayers. The Tribe has already spent time and resources. The Tribe intends to take whatever action is necessary to prevent disturbance to this resource. The Tribe respectfully requests the Commissioners to deny this Application.
Mark Tilden, Tribe’s legal department, emphasized M.G.L. c. 130 §§ 57 thru 68 which state the Tribe has exclusive rights to the shellfish beds and if there is any disturbance to the aquaculture farm the law provides for penalties. Attorney Tilden said that it is critical to keep in mind there should not be any disturbance to the Tribe’s shellfish grant. He cited §67. He said the Tribe does not consent to any kind of interference of the right to the shellfish grant which expires in 2027.
Mr. Gurnee asked if anyone can document how much shellfish has been taken out from under the bridge. George Green said the Tribe was not prepared at this time to address this question. Mr. Tilden said leaving aside that question, the Tribe has exclusive rights to the use of that area. Ms. Little Doe-Baird said she fishes the area and takes children there regularly. Children and families fish the area and they do not typically take counts.
The Agent said it is the Commission’s choice as to whether they want to invoke c. 44 § 53G and hire an outside consultant or make a decision on the project right now. He said he felt in reading both reports from Horsey and Witten and Tetra Tech and the claim that this project is water dependent doesn’t meet the definition of water dependent under the regulations. The project does not serve any public purpose and under the regulations, it is not water dependent. Due to impacts to the shellfish and aquaculture grant area, the letter from the Division of Marine Fisheries has deemed this to be viable shellfish habitat and made their recommendations that they do not approve of this project.
The Agent noted there are some other issues. One is that the Application doesn’t have the box checked off under resource areas for bordering vegetated wetlands which is a procedural matter that needs to be addressed. Another issue is the 310CMR 10.05 procedures section C and G. He cited this regulation. Two values protected under the bylaw are recreational uses and aquaculture. There is some misinformation and missing information. He stated it is up to the Commission to decide to continue and hire an outside consultant or to deny the Application.
Mr. Gurnee referred to the report from Horsley and Witten and to the water dependency issue. He reiterated that it is a legal issue, not a Conservation issue. The Commission also has to decide if the proposal will have an adverse impact. It is necessary to get a better understanding of what DEP’s understanding is regarding adverse impact as well as a better understanding of water dependency. There was a discussion on water dependent and non-water dependent.
Attorney Brian J. Wall explained the Applicant did appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for an Application for a single family dwelling without a bridge being proposed. The ZBA denied the Application on public safety grounds and required provision of vehicular access to the island. He then spoke about whether it is water dependent or non-water dependent. He said if it is water dependent, the Applicant is required to use the best available methods to reduce impacts to the resource areas. If it is not water dependent, the Applicant has to meet the standard of no adverse effect to shellfish, shellfish habitat and land containing shellfish. He reminded the Commission they are here tonight to approve or deny the request for a continuance.
Following a discussion on water dependent use and adverse impact, the Commissioners decided to hire an independent consultant to carefully go over the documentation and render his opinion of these items. Mr. Wall said the Applicant understands the Board has the right to hire an outside consultant at the Applicant’s expense.
The Agent said it would be his recommendation to hire an outside consultant.
Mr. Fitzpatrick also noted the comments of the Division of Marine Fisheries and its opposition to the project.
Mr. Green stated that anyone walking across the shellfish grant and destroying the shellfish is liable for the damage caused. The regulation states the conditions are different and if it is a non-water dependent use, no damage can be done. He claimed that the subject property is an unbuildable lot.
Ms. Ball pointed out the regulations cited the Chapter 91 regulations which further define what is water dependent and what is not water dependent.
Attorney Patrick Costello, Town Counsel, said the project is a private residential development and the Applicant wants to put a house on the island. He cited 310 CMR 912 regarding water dependent use. He said the board should focus on what the project is: a residential development on Gooseberry Island and that the bridge is an accessory to either a water dependent use or a non-water dependent use. The Board must determine if the house is a water dependent use. The bridge is an accessory use because it provides private access. In his opinion, private roads, private ways do not fall within any definition classification of water dependent use. Attorney Costello also said private residences located on an upland would not be a water dependent use.
The Agent said his personal opinion is this proposal is in no way water dependent based on the regulatory language. If it is deemed to be non-water dependent, the Agent wants a clear definition of the threshold of no adverse impact. There needs to be more study on what triggers adverse impact. The Agent said his recommendation is to hire an outside consultant. The Commissioners agreed to hire an outside consultant with a specific scope and to cover the issue of the resource areas that are subject to adverse impact. It was also agreed to have the Agent draft a scope of work to hire a consultant. Mr. Gurnee moved to hire an independent consultant to deal with issues including adverse impacts and the effects on all resource areas and any other areas within that scope of work. Seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
Mr. Sweet moved for a continuance to November 13, 2014 to allow the Agent to submit his RFP to assess the status of the consultant, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous. 6-0.
The Agent suggested any other information from all of the interested parties should be submitted expeditiously so it can be given to the consultant.
6:03 Town of Mashpee, 491 Great Oak Road. Proposed parking lot and boat ramp reconstruction. Continued form 8/28/2014 to allow time to submit revised plans. NOI.
Resource Area: Coastal Beach, LSCSF, Buffer Zone to LUO.
Roger Michniewicz, Coastal Engineering, who was representing the Town of Mashpee, described the project work which involves reconstructing the Great River Boat Ramp Facility and implementing pervious pavement and concrete leaching basins to control storm water runoff from entering Great River. In addition, the project includes reconfiguring the parking areas to maximize the components as shown on the site plan. On the waterfront, the existing DEP licensed boat ramp will be reconstructed with a new precast concrete boat ramp and the existing licensed wooden pier system, licensed by DEP, will be replaced with a new marine aluminum pier and ramp system that will be handicap accessible. Also, the proposal calls for installation of a non-water dependent wooden lookout area that will also be handicap accessible. Mr.
Michniewicz noted there is currently no treatment or management of storm water at the site. Plans call for installation of a precast concrete catch basin that will direct water to three underground precast chambers. Green spaces have also been incorporated as bio retention areas to treat additional storm water. He said this project will result in environmental benefits in terms of water quality for the water body as well as maximize the use of the facility.
The Agent noted that people store their dinghy’s and canoes across the salt marsh to access the moorings. However, all those boats stored there kill off the salt marsh. The Agent has been talking to the Waterways Commission to see if there can be another method of storage. DPW Director Catherine Laurent noted the storage of those boats is not on Town property. The Agent said the project meets the performance standards for land under ocean. There is no interference with salt marsh except for the ramp. A letter from Division Marine Fisheries recommends there should be ample sunlight penetration through the ramp. Ms. Laurent stated that is this particular style of ramp was chosen because it allows sunlight to pass through. Mr. Roger said the total size of the lot is
approximately 40,000 square feet and meets the standard for retaining a natural vegetated area as per Regulation 25 under the Chapter 172 Wetland Bylaw. The Agent requested for this to be included in the narrative.
Mr. Sweet asked about sliding a kayak safely into the water. Mr. Sweet was also concerned with the debris in the area on Monday mornings and suggested a bigger container. Ms. Laurent noted she will look into it.
Mr. Joseph Cerniglia, an abutter expressed his concerns with the additional spaces and stated there are no hourly restrictions. He said that people are very inconsiderate and are there all hours of the night. He spoke about the orchids that grow in the area in the springtime. He asked if a sanitary facility could be built there and Ms. Laurent stated it is not part of the project. Mr. Cerniglia expressed concern about removal of vegetation and asked if some kind of screening could be planted. Ms. Laurent said a ten foot buffer from the residential property will be maintained. She also said she would address the trash issue and possibility of a installing a portable toilet.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to Close and Issue, seconded Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
Mr. Gurnee commented on shore protection at our beaches and at the Bays water property. He said he noted the wood they are using is not appropriately pressured treated. The jute is completely gone on the end of the bales at the Bays water property. We as a community are stuck if the material is gone and the bales are gone and we need to make sure they are covered and the DPW Director may want to look at the wood.
6:06 Theodore C. Eli and Maureen E. Creedon, 14 Penn Lane. Proposed construction of two stone patios. RDA
Resource Area: Riverfront Mashpee River, Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank.
Ted Eli and Maureen Creedon presented their project to the Commission. Mr. Eli stated they would like to build two stone patios in their backyard. The front patio will measure approximately 10’ by 5 ½’ and would be a base for their boat trailer. No vegetation would be disturbed or removed during construction. The second patio would be a semi-circle in shape measuring approximately 21’ by 13’ at its widest points. This would involve minimal disturbance to the surrounding vegetation with removing or relocating about four small shrubs. Mr. Eli commented they are very sensitive to the environment. All the materials are natural materials and no pollution is expected.
The Agent noted the area for the first patio was previously approved for them to store their boat trailer. He didn’t have an issue with this area but it has to be understood that no vegetation is to be removed because they are within 20 ft. of the coastal bank. The Agent said that if there is to be any grading that should be made known in the narrative.
The Agent commented on the second patio and agreed there would be no impact to the river. However, protection of native vegetation that serves as a buffer zone to the river must also be considered. Existing conditions vary from lot to lot. The Agent expressed concern with the second patio because of the existing vegetation. If there is an opportunity to locate the patio in an area that requires no clearing of native vegetation, there would be no issue. The Agent suggested relocating the patio and suggested a continuance so he can conduct a site visit with the Applicants.
The Agent recommended continuing the hearing to October 23, 2014.
Mr. Eli requested that the hearing be continued to October 23, 2014. He said that he will submit a better description of the location of the proposed patios and description of the materials to be used.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing to October 23, 2014 at 6:15 p.m. at the request of the Applicant, Seconded by Mr. Gurnee. Vote unanimous. 6-0
6:09 The Mackin Group, Inc. 76 Triton Way. Request to Amend Certificate of Compliance DEP File No. SE 43-1214 and SE 43-1625. Continued from 9/11/2014 to allow time for Town Counsel opinion. ACOC
Resource Area: Coastal Bank (armored), LSCSF, Land Under Ocean.
Glen Wood, Rubin and Rudman, was representing the Applicant and stated the original COC was issued in 2007. This hearing was continued from 9/11/2014 to allow time for Town counsel’s opinion. Mr. Wood stated the property owner is requesting to Amend the Certificate of Compliance for SE 43-1214 and SE 43-1625 by stating that the ongoing conditions requiring annual beach nourishment be revoked. He explained the neighbors on both sides have had their beach nourishment requirement previously revoked. The Agent stated the Applicants are requesting the relinquishment of beach nourishment. He read comments from Town counsel who stated he saw no problem with the Conservation Commission agreeing to terminate the nourishment requirements. He felt there was precedent for this action with other similar parcels.
Mr. Gurnee suggested granting the Amendment for three years then revisiting it again at that time. The Agent recommended honoring the request of the Applicant. Following a brief discussion,
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to Amend the Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote 5-1 with Mr. Gurnee voting in the negative.
6:12 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. Applicant request continuance to 10/23/2014. NOI
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue at the request of the applicant to 10/23/2014 at 6:09, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:15 Bayswater Seaside II, LLC. 42 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. Applicant requests continuance to 11/13/2014 to allow time to submit revised plans. NOI
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing at the request of the applicant, to November 13, 2014 at 6:03, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous.6-0.
6:18 Bayswater Seaside II, LLC. 50 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. Applicant requests continuance to 11/13/2014 to allow time to submit revised plans. NOI
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing at the request of the applicant to 11/13/2014 at 6:06, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:21 Bayswater Seaside II, LLC. 60 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. Applicant requests continuance to 11/13/2014 to allow time to submit revised plans. NOI
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing at the request of the applicant to 11/13/2014 at 6:09, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:24 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 Applicants. She explained this hearing was continued due to the fact that the Commission wanted to see the mitigation plantings, as well as information on soil borings done on the site, because they were concerned about the stability of the bank. She said drawings were revised to include 4,076 square feet of mitigated plantings. She said they have met the requirement for mitigation plantings and referred to the soil boring information in the packets
Comments from the public.
Mr. Arnold Wallenstein, abutter, 94 Shore Drive West, said he addressed the Commission on August 28 and is representing 10 or 12 neighbors. He summarized a letter he prepared dated October 9 highlighting the Order of Conditions approved by the Conservation Commission for 124, 118, 126 Shore Drive West. He reviewed Special Conditions: Special Condition 18: the vegetation within 50 feet of the top of the coastal bank must be maintained at a 90% survival rate. Special Condition 20: any future landscaping within 100 feet of any resource area in section 172-2 of the Mashpee Code must be approved by the Commission. Special Condition 21: Special Conditions 19, 20, 22 and 23 shall be observed in perpetuity and referenced in all deeds to the property and Special Condition 23: a naturally vegetated
buffer strip of 50 feet from the top of the coastal bank shall be maintained in perpetuity.
Mr. Wallenstein stated the coastal bank remains unstable and it doesn’t make sense to allow construction of pools, decks, garages and very large houses as close as 28 feet from the edge of the coastal bank. He cited the Conservation Commission’s regulation section 172-7(1) which is very protective of wetlands and coastal resources. He suggested severe conditions put in the Order of Conditions for 42, 50, 60 and 66 coastal drive which included:
- Requiring all decks, pools, garages and house be set back 100 feet from the edge of the coastal bank.
- Maintain a 25 foot wide beach maintenance easement so the homeowners can perform beach nourishment.
- Maintain a 50 foot wide continuous naturally vegetated buffer strip from the edge of the beach maintenance easement and a no build zone landward for 25 feet.
Mr. Wallenstein stated he doesn’t oppose the construction of the houses but he requested that the project be constructed in accordance with applicable town wetlands ordinances and the Commission should impose the Conditions he suggested for the protection of the coastal environment and abutting properties.
There was a discussion on whether the lots were previously disturbed. The Agent said it comes down to the timeline when the disturbance took place. He explained the regulations provide a waiver section with a mitigation chart which requires a certain amount of mitigation based on encroachment towards a resource area on top of a coastal bank.
Attorney Barry Fogel was present on behalf of the individual unit owners who are represented by Mr. Wallenstein. He asked about a document for a waiver requirement. He said the Commission has no filing from the Applicant for this lot to demonstrate that they are seeking a waiver. He said there has never been a filing for the disturbance of this property. He said that this lot should be treated as if there is undisturbed vegetation on it. The original filing shows the proposed future maintenance easement which the Applicant is trying to use by planting beach grass for mitigation which is inconsistent for the beach maintenance. He referred to the memorandum from Briggs where there is some discussion about footings on undisturbed sand. Attorney Fogel claimed that the Applicant has not made a
demonstration of where the excavation will take place and there should be an engineer plan on how far and how wide the excavation will go. He questioned why the Applicant was “piece mealing” the lots. He requested the Commission get answers to their questions and urged them to ask for that information.
Tara Marden, Woods Hole Group, said it is a pre-disturbed area and referred to the chart which wasn’t available. The Agent suggested continuing the hearing based on the chart not being available. The question of why the Applicant is encroaching into the 100-foot buffer should be addressed.
Ms. Marden explained the nourishment can be done by proceeding down the beach from the golf course.
Attorney Fogel noted the Commission has not received a document that establishes permanent access from the golf course for the proposed nourishment on the beach. He said that if access was not available, the nourishment would have to be done from the top of the bank.
Joseph Colasuonno, Director of Development, asked about how far back in time would he have to go to be able to determine if it is a pre-disturbed lot. The Agent said if it was pre-disturbed prior to the enactment of the Wetlands Protection Act, it would be grandfathered. He said he would have to do some research. There was a discussion on whether the lot is pre-disturbed and whether there were trees on the lot.
The Agent explained there are three criteria for a waiver that needs to be met to protect the wetlands. Mr. Sweet asked why the whole entire subdivision doesn’t be redefined to get houses pushed back. The protection of the coastal bank has to be addressed.
Mr. McKay was concerned about the access to nourish the beach and said that the Commission needs confirmation that the access from the golf course is permanent.
Mr. Colasuonno requested a continuance to get the information the Commissioners have requested. Mr. Anderson asked if he could also include examples of lots that were developed with appropriate setbacks so they can have a comparison. Mr. Gurnee suggested better mitigation plantings than grasses. He would prefer dense plantings nourished and watered and some kind of guarantee of access from the bottom for beach nourishment.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing to October 23, 2014 at 6:18 at the request of the Applicant who needs to submit the following information:
- Incorporate into the narrative the 3 criteria for the waiver;
- A plan for the plantings and verification of a beach nourishment;
- Provide other examples of similar developments;
- A timeline of the history of the lot in order to determine if it is pre-disturbed.
Seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:27 Mary T. Petersen (Applicant), 11 Compass Circle. Proposed replacement of six posts with six 8” round pilings, hand dig two 4x4’ posts and construction of six stairs to access existing pier. Nicholas J. Nardone, Trustee (property owners). RDA
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing at the request of the Applicant to November 13, 2014 at 6:15 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:30 Jeremy N. Stevenson, et al Trustees, 431 Monomoscoy Road. After-the-fact filing to Amend Order of Conditions SE 43-2658 to allow for deposit of sand for beach nourishment and landscaping enhancement. AOOC
Resource Area: LSCSF, Coastal Beach, Buffer Zone to Salt Marsh, BVW.
Matt Costa, Cape and Islands Engineering, was representing the Applicants and stated this is an after-the-fact Amendment to authorize the small amount of beach nourishment placed on an area of the Coastal Beach. Approximately 3 cubic yards of beach
nourishment was deposited on the coastal beach and another small amount of sand was placed along the edge of the lawn area as a landscaping enhancement. He referred to a letter from PA Landers certifying the sand was clean and washed free of any content that may adversely affect the water quality to the existing sand. He also noted there was no damage to the salt marsh. He said the Applicant is humbly requesting to Amend the Order of Conditions. The Agent stated this was part of an Application for a single family home and he showed the area on a map where the nourishment took place. He felt the best way to get this into compliance was for the Applicant to submit a request for an Amendment to their Order of Conditions. The Agent recommended the approval of the Amendment.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to approve the Amendment to the Order of Conditions, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote 6-0
6:33 Richard J. and Janet M. Cleary, 16 Spoondrift Way. After-the-fact filing to Amend Order of Conditions SE 43-2762 to complete removal of existing deteriorated timber bulkhead and replace it with construction and maintenance of a new bulkhead AOOC
Resource Area LSCSF, Coastal Bank, Salt Marsh.
Matt Costa, Cape and Islands Engineering, was representing the Cleary’s. The owner and contractor decided to install a bulkhead and then stopped. They paid their penalties and are attempting to bring this project into compliance by submitting a separate RDA for the construction and maintenance of a new bulkhead. The Applicant is asking permission to continue the work up to the existing culvert. They will stop the bulkhead and return it so it does not interfere with the culvert. The reason for filing a separate RDA is because this work is actually on New Seabury property. Plans for mitigation call for removal of the shrub material and filling in behind the wall, and replanting the area with native plantings. The same procedure will be done at the second wall. The project does meet the performance
standards. Mr. Costa said that the Agent has done an exceptional job in working with the Applicants in allowing them to file under the Amended Order of Conditions in an effort to allow for the work that has been done and to complete the work as described.
The Agent said the project is in complete accordance with the performance standards for these resources areas. He recommended approval of the Amended Order of Conditions and then suggested opening the next hearing for the RDA which is an extension of the very same project. Mr. Costa said the Applicant has received proper sign offs from New Seabury.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to approve the Amendment to the Order of Conditions, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0
6:36 Richard J. and Janet M. Cleary (Applicant), 18 Spoondrift Way. After-the-fact filling to complete removal of existing deteriorated timber bulkhead and replace it with construction and maintenance of a new bulkhead (Owners of record. New Seabury Properties LLC). RDA
Resource Area: LSCSF, Coastal Bank, Salt Marsh.
Matt Costa, Cape and Islands Engineering was representing the Applicants, Mr. Cleary and the property owners at New Seabury, for the previously mentioned work.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved for a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:39 Marc and June Levy, 16 Fells Circle. Proposed installation of fence. RDA
Resource Area: Buffer zone to Land Under Waterbodies & Waterways (Fells Pond).
June Levy, Applicant, stated she is proposing to build a fence. The fence would be on the right side of the house. From the house to the wooded area would be picket fence and the remainder a chain link fence. There would be a gate on the stairway. The reason for the fence is for her two dogs and her neighbor’s dogs.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved for a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
6:42 James Kfoury, et al Trustees, 37 Seconsett Point Road. Proposed additions of a foyer and deck onto existing dwelling. RDA
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing until October 23 at 6:21 at the request of the Applicant, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0
PRE/POST HEARING AGENDA Continued:
Briarwood Association Land Wetland Violation – unpermitted mowing of wetland behind Association Beach.
The Agent said this is an Association-owned land near Johns Pond. The Association land on the beach is where the alterations have taken place. There are remnants of an old cranberry bog and the land has reverted to a wetland. Based on visits and correspondence from residents about mosquitos, the Agent recommended the Association contact Mosquito Control. He recently discovered the area looked radically different and showed the area on the map. He was told the area has been mowed repeatedly.
Several members of the association who were present disputed the area is a wetland.
The Agent recommended the Association hire a wetland scientist to dig down for the presence of hydric soils because that is a guaranteed way to determine if it is a wetland.
Tighe and Bond: Assistance with Grant applications for Quashnet River and Johns Pond fish ladders. Proposal for grant application services.
The Agent was requesting that the Commission approval to release $5,000 in funds in order to apply for grants for the rest of the Johns Pond fish ladders.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to release $5,000 in funds for assistance in applying for the grant, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
Request for Administrative Approval SE 43-2194: Poppy Spit dredging/additional beach nourishment/dune restoration. Tara Marden, Woods Hole Group.
Tara Marden, Woods Hole Group, was requesting an Administrative Approval on SE 43-2194 for the dune and restoration permit She was asking for the option to use upland sand for the dune restoration. This will not change what the permit has allowed. She said she would notify the Agent a week prior to start of work.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to approve the request for Administrative Approval, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous 6-0. Meeting Adjourned 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Daigneault
Recording Secretary
| 
