Conservation Commission
Minutes of December 11, 2014
Public Hearings
Mashpee Town Hall
Ockway Meeting Room
Commissioners: John Fitzsimmons, Dale McKay, Robert Anderson, Brad Sweet, Ralph Shaw, Mark Gurnee.
Staff Present: Drew McManus (Conservation Agent) and Judy Daigneault (Recording Secretary
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: 5:55 p.m.
PRE/POST-HEARING AGENDA:
Minutes: October 23, and November 11, 2014 Minutes.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to accept the minutes of October 23, 2014 and November 11, 2014, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
Informational Discussion: Joan Muse regarding tree at 18 Cross Tree Way.
The Agent informed the Commissioners that Joan Muse was present to address property at 18 Cross Tree Way which is a coastal lot under wetlands jurisdiction.
Joan Muse was present on behalf of the owner of 18 Cross Tree Way. She requested the removal of a very large cedar tree and proposed mitigating native species plantings. She has spoken to a Massachusetts certified arborist and he estimated the area would be 20 by 15 feet with approximately 20 plants of native species planted in place of the tree. She asked if she could go forward in filing an RDA working in conjunction with Hoxie Landscaping. She explained the property is on the market and the tree is affecting the ability to sell the property.
The Agent explained the reason he had Joan Muse come before the Commission without any permit application is to get the Commission’s recommendation on what type of permit they would feel is necessary for this situation. He said he has received many requests for removal of this tree over the years. The agent suggested a NOI because an RDA cannot be conditioned. Following a discussion and review of the photos provided, the Commissioners agreed the applicant should file an NOI and noted this would not necessarily mean the Commissioners would be approving the NOI.
HEARINGS:
6:00 Popponesset Beach Association, 0 Uncle Percy’s Road. Proposed aquatic management of Dean’s Pond. Applicant has requested continuance to January 8, 2015. NOI
The Agent explained there has been a delay in getting delineations completed by the consultant; therefore, the proposal has not received a DEP number.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing to January 8, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. at the request of the applicant, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:03 Timothy and Mary Jane Colton, 74 Bluff Avenue. Proposed replacement of existing deck with construction of screened porch. RDA
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flow.
Matt Costa, Cape and Islands Engineering was representing the applicants. He said the property is located in the flood zone and the proposal calls for replacement of the existing deck with a screened-in porch. The project meets the current performance standards as the project does not propose disturbance beyond any existing structural footprint. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:06 Bayswater Seaside II LLC, 42 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single-family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. Continued from 9/11/2014 to allow time for revised plans. NOI
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank/LSCSF/Coastal Beach.
John Wadsworth was representing the applicant. Also present was Joe Colasuonno from Bayswater Development, and Matt Creighton from BSC Group. Tara Marden from the Woods Hole Group was unable to attend. Mr. Wadsworth suggested dealing with all four hearings at one time. A letter was distributed from Briggs Engineering responding to the concern that there wasn’t any direct potential information on the stability of the bank. The last paragraph stated that the structures will not destabilize the bank based on the existing soils and recommended construction techniques. It was decided to review each application individually.
Mr. Wadsworth reviewed the revised narrative submitted. Mr. Colasuonno addressed the vacant lot which is part of the homeowners association and is an access to the water. The area will be used for trucks and machines. It was noted that there will be no septic systems associated with these houses as the area is already sewered.
The Agent stated the proposal meets the 50 foot setback. He also stated that more information needs to be submitted regarding the beach nourishment aspect and the homeowners’ responsibility, as well as access to accommodate beach nourishment in the future when these lots are sold. Mr. Colasuonno said the beach nourishment will be nourishing on the easement created on Shore Drive West. The homeowners make contributions for the nourishment. The easement is in perpetuity. Mr. Sweet wanted to make sure the conditions of nourishment are attached to the deeds. It was explained there are two ways to accomplish the beach nourishment. One is the easement that Tidewatch uses on New Seabury’s property and the newly created easement from Shore Drive West. Matt Creighton reviewed the
mitigation plantings proposed.
Attorney Fogel, on behalf of Mr. Wallenstein and a group of owners of the condominiums, wanted to clarify that Tidewatch shares access from New Seabury to the beach so when they put vegetation they will no longer be able to drive vehicles and dump sand over the top. He spoke about the lot that previously had trees and beach grass and was used for a staging area. He said the Commission should treat this particular lot specifically where there was a violation. He said even though the developer has moved the buffer back to 50 feet, he was requesting the Commission insist on a 100 foot setback to allow for revegetation. He requested that the Commissioners deny the revised application regarding the 50 foot setback. He said the unit owners request, if the commission grants any of the proposal, that they require a mix
of indigenous plantings, something to give diversity. Attorney Fogel wanted to make sure that the beach nourishment connects directly to the timber wall project and whatever Bayswater is subject to is carried forward. Mr. Fogel said the owners also request that a Condition be placed that the owner of the lot would not be able to come in and propose an engineering structure on the coastal bank. He said if the Commission grants approval, it is done with something that has a 100 feet of buffer revegetation.
Matt Creighton said as far as replacing the 100 foot buffer with vegetation, he feels they have met the performance standards. The applicant will provide beach grass along the top of the coastal bank as well as other plantings. The list of the plantings was included in their packets. He said if there were some other plantings the Commission wanted to discuss, he would be happy to discuss it. He addressed the request to not allow an engineering structure on the coastal bank. He noted the regulations are subject to change all the time and he has no idea what the regulations will be down the road.
The Commission reviewed photos of the previously vegetated path. The Agent said he doesn’t know when it was cleared but could not find a permit for the clearing. The bylaw states this is how much must be replanted when a violation takes place. He said it is not an exchange to push the house back 100 feet. Matt Creighton stated they have come up with more mitigation than is required with more than 14,000 square feet of mitigation. The Agent suggested incorporating a bit more diversity, instead of just beach grass, to try to establish a coastal habitat that could be easily maintained. It was also discussed why no one raised the issue of this previously vegetated area prior to now.
Attorney Fogel opined if the lot was vegetated as it was two years ago and an NOI was filed, the Commissioners would have likely not permitted cutting any of that 100 foot buffer. He noted the Commissioners have been out on this property many times over the last 30 years. The fact that it is being brought up now is to treat the lot as if the unpermitted violation is not ignored. It was a violation and should not be rewarded. The condo owners are abutters to a lot that had standards that the Commissioners enforce.
Joseph Colasuonno, Bayswater Development, noted it is all about the view regarding lot 42. Mr. Wallenstein’s view cuts across the lot.
No comments from the public.
The Agent stated if the Commissioners approve the project, they should require an Amendment to include a new planting plan. Approving a 50 foot set back is not going to adversely affect the performance standards of the coastal bank. Although no aspect of
these homes will destabilize the bank, the Agent recommended a more diverse planting scheme.
The Agent’s recommendation was to close and issue this hearing and have the Applicant return with a new updated planting plan or continue the hearing in order to have the Commissioners review the amended planting plan. Mr. Creighton pointed out that the Commission cannot require an amendment and requested the Commission approve the application, but not issue until a planting plan is submitted and approved by the Agent.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing at the request of the applicant to January 8, 2015 at 6:24, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:09 Bayswater Seaside II LLC, 50 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. Continued from 9/11/2014 to allow time for revised plans. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing at the request of the applicant to January 8, 2015 at 6:27, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:12 Bayswater Seaside II LLC, 60 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. Continued from 9/11/2014 to allow time for revised plans. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing to January 8, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. at the request of the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:15 The Osprey Nominee Trust, 71 Monomoscoy Road. Proposal of the following: reconstruct/maintain pier, ramp and float; remove existing elevated deck, stairs, wood and concrete debris from coastal beach; beach nourishment; extend existing concrete bulkhead along shoreline: remove/replace existing bulkhead along driveway; construct two-car garage; make improvements to existing gravel driveway; install stone patio and fire pit; perform associated grading and landscaping; wetland restoration; native plantings; and invasive species management. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing to January 8, 2015 at 6:21p.m., seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:18 James K. and Kathleen M. Miller, 105 Popponesset Island Road. After-the-fact filing for tree trimming and pruning. RDA
Resource Area: LSCSF.
Kathleen Miller informed the board that they significantly trimmed three trees because they had no sun in the driveway. She said she didn’t think it was a problem (she did not realize the jurisdictional extent of the Ch. 172 Wetland Bylaw). She explained she is here tonight to be in compliance with the bylaw.
The Agent explained the applicant had a vista pruning permit in 1998. Because there was excessive pruning done, he requested the applicant to file an RDA. He said the work did not affect any performance standards and recommended a negative determination. The Agent said he would be going over the vista pruning permit with the homeowner.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:21 Judith J. Miller, Trustee, 2 Popponesset Island Road. Proposed Amendments to Order of Conditions SE 43-2382 to reduce scope of work. AOOC.
Resource Area: Land Under Ocean, Land Containing Shellfish
Mr. Raul Lizardi-Rivera, PE, Holmes and McGrath, was representing the homeowner and explained this was an amendment to an order of an amendment which was extended. He showed a plan that was proposed at the time. The applicant is now proposing a significantly reduced scope of work from the original approval. The proposed revisions include the construction and maintenance of two additions to the existing single family house, restoration, plantings, and mitigation plantings required under a now expired Order of Conditions. Mitigation plantings are proposed to compensate for the loss of eight trees that were lost either to storms, disease or cutting over the past several years. With the recommendation of the Conservation Agent, native shrubs will be planted as shown on the plan. In addition, one cedar tree,
will also be planted as part of the restoration. Mr. Raul Lizardi-Rivera commented he felt shrubs would be better suited in this area and the shrubs would grow high enough for wildlife cover.
The Agent said this was a project that was previously authorized under an NOI and the amended request proposes a significant reduction in the original NOI. There will be mitigation for vegetation that was removed over the last several years without permission. He recommended an approval of the amended order request. The Agent also requested that the paddle boat sitting on the salt marsh be removed because it is adversely affecting (smothering) the salt marsh vegetation.
No comments from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved the approval of the Amended Order of Conditions, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:24 Bayswater Seaside II LLC, 66 Coastline Drive. Proposed construction of single family dwelling, swimming pool and landscaping. Continued from 11/13/2014.NOI
John Wadsworth was present representing the applicant and requested the Commission close the hearing. The reason for this request is because there is a potential buyer for the parcel. The applicant would agree to the same planting plan as the other three proposals on Coastline Drive. The Agent recommended the Commissioners not approve the planting plan which is limited to the planting of beach grass, therefore, the landscape plan should not be part of the approval. Matt Creighton said if the project is approved the applicant would work with the Commission and submit a revised plan before the Order of Conditions is issued.
No comments from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to Close but not Issue, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:27 Donald B. and Phyllis M. Brick, 18 Spoondrift Circle. Proposed pruning of treesvoverhanging dwelling and establishment of a vista corridor. Continued from 11/13/2014 to allow time for DEP review. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to continue the hearing to January 8, 2015 at 6:15 at the request of the applicant, seconded by Mr. Shaw. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:30 Robert M. Valletta, 112 Captains Row. Proposed tree removal and replace invasive species with native plantings. Continued from 11/13/2014 to allow time for DEP review. NOI
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue at the request of the applicant to January 8, 2015 at 6:12 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:33 Jonathan and Kimberly M. Yohannan, 304 Red Brook Road. Proposed tree and shrub removal to allow for installation of child’s swing set and installation of native plantings to mitigate for proposed clearing. RDA.
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to BVW.
Mr. Yohannan was present and explained that they are proposing to remove one black locust and some low bushes in order to install a swing set.
The Agent pointed out that the area proposed to be slightly encroached between the 40 and 50 foot buffer is a minor request to get into the buffer zone. No part of this proposed encroachment is going to adversely affect the performance standards of bordering vegetated wetland. It is simply clearing a small patch to accommodate a swing set and it is being offset by mitigation. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the Public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:36 Claudia M. Rucky, 8 Summerset Road. Proposed tree removal and pruning. RDA.
The Agent stated Mr. Rucky could not make it to the hearing and has requested a continuance.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved at the request of the applicant to continue the hearing to January 8, 2015 at 6:36 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:39 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. Continued from 11/13/2014. NOI.
The Agent brought the Commissioners up-to-date on the status of the RFPs sent out for a third party peer review of the proposed project. BSC Group was chosen and they submitted a revised scope of services to focus on the following: determination of water dependency status of the proposed bridge; compliance of the proposed project with all applicable resource areas and performance standards; compliance of the project to the wetlands restriction order under MGL Chapter 130 section 105; assessment of any impact to the aquaculture grant area and assessment of proposed mitigation area (which is something the consultant is not normally involved with). The last part was the request of the applicant’s attorney to put a cap on the services, which has been estimated at $5,000. Any amount above the cap must be approved by the
Commission prior to those tasks being carried out. The Agent informed the Commission they need to vote to approve the revised scope of services so he can inform the BSC Group to go forward with this review. The applicant is required to pay for these services.
Rebecca Salguero, Tilden and McCoy, was present on behalf of the Tribe. She objected to any reduction of the scope and requested the reduction in scope be reconsidered. She also commented on the amount of time and money the Town and the Tribe has spent and stated the Tribe strongly opposes the application.
The Agent explained the reduction in scope will be handled by the Conservation Office, which will not diminish the evaluation of the criteria.
Following a discussion, Mr. Shaw moved to approve the revised scope of services, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing to January 8, 2015 for additional updates at 6:39 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:42 Jeffrey M. and Elaine Wiesen, 30 Wheelhouse Lane. Proposed expansion of existing garage .RDA
Resource Area: Flood Zone.
Mr. Michael LeBlanc was representing the applicants. They are proposing to replace a single car garage and increase the size with a two car garage. This proposal has been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The addition will be going towards the road and not closer to the resource area. The Agent noted the garage is outside of 100 feet of the wetlands but is within land subject to coastal storm flow, which doesn’t affect the performance standards. The Agent read the Board of Health comments for the record.
No comments from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved for a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:45 Daniel P. Busa, Jr. and Jody B. Busa, 7 Aunt Janes Road. Proposed construction of swimming pool and required safety fence and installation of mitigation plantings. NOI
Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Coastal Band/ Bordering Vegetated Wetland.
Tom Bunker, BSS Design was representing the applicants and described the project is to construct an 18’ by 36’ swimming pool. There will be some excavation to lower the grade just behind the house but there will be more fill to bring the grade up to elevation. The safety fence will be installed at the base of the slope. Mr. Bunker described the proposed mitigation.
The Agent stated the setback varies with 10 feet being the closest. He pointed out this coastal bank is non-eroding and thus, does not provide a sediment source for any other coastal resource areas. The primary value associated with it is wildlife habitat and no clearing of any native vegetation is planned. The applicant proposes to get rid of the turf and enhance the buffer zone with mitigation native shrubs. The Agent recommended a close and issue.
No comments from the Public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to close and issue, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:48 William D. and Carol A. Sherman, 18 Great River Road. Proposed septic system upgrade. RDA.
Resource Area: LSCSF, Buffer Zone to LUO/CB.
Jack Vaccaro was representing the applicant. The proposal is to upgrade the cesspool with a septic system. He noted the Board of Health approval. The Agent reiterated the Board of Health has approved the application which includes a sludgehammer treatment unit as well as UV treatment. No vegetation will be cleared in that area. The Agent recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:51 Kimberly E. Graves, 49 Clover Lane. Proposed septic system upgrade. RDA.
Resource Area; LSCSF.
Mr. Jack Vaccaro was representing the applicant and described the proposed project which will consist of pumping and removing the existing cesspool. A new septic system will be installed as shown on the plan provided. The areas that will be disturbed will be restored with loam and seed. The Agent noted the Board of Health approved the plan and he recommended a negative determination.
No comments from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous 6-0
6:54 Valentin P. Gapontsev, 15 Ocean Bluff Drive. Proposed construction of elevated boardwalk and stairs and mitigation plantings. NOI.
Resource Area: Coastal Bank, Coastal Dune, Coastal Beach, LSCSF
Mr. Daniel Ojala, Down Cape Engineering, was representing the applicants and described the proposed project is the construction of an elevated boardwalk. It will not adversely affect the coastal dune as the design will allow for sand to move to adjacent coastal resource areas. The elevated walkway will have the proper spacing between decking which will allow for vegetation to grow underneath. He said the walkway will have negligible impacts on the coastal bank/coastal dune or land subject to coastal storm flowage. The Agent was concerned about the need for this walkover structure because of a disagreement between the Applicant and their neighbor who currently share an existing walkover structure situated between the two properties. Specifically, there is a disagreement over who is responsible for closing the
gate of the shared walkway (child safety issue); thus, the impetus for a new walkway on the applicant’s lot. The agent felt it should be a shared responsibility between neighbors and he doesn’t think this situation warrants a whole new walkway. The Agent commented this issue should be easily rectified by two homeowners. The Agent recommended a continuance to investigate the history of the permitted walkways along this stretch of coastal homes
No comments from the public.
Mr. Shaw moved to continue the hearing at the request of the applicant to January 8 at 6:42 p.m. seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
6:57 NStar Electric Company, 21 Orchard Road. Proposed expansion of existing substation and installation of native plantings. RDA.
Resource Area: LSCSF.
Christopher Wagner, VHB, explained the plan is to expand the existing substation and installation of native plantings for screening from the neighbors. There will be plantings in the location of an isolated vegetated wetland. The native plantings will be restoring a previously disturbed area. The Agent noted that this isolated wetland came into existence because of repeated heavy vehicle traffic that has caused rutting and soil compaction in this area. Obligate wetland species (cattails) have since become established. The Agent did not feel that this small wetland area served any significant purpose regarding performance standards. He said that the area would be better served being enhanced with upland plantings, as it lies within NHESP priority habitat for the Eastern Box Turtle. He recommended a
negative determination.
No comments from the public.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved a negative determination, seconded by Mr. Sweet Vote unanimous: 6-0.
7:00 Edward D. and Lillian K. Yun, Trustees. Proposed construction of swimming pool and required safety fence, renovation of existing elevated boardwalk, and installation of mitigation plantings. NOI.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to continue hearing at the request of the applicant to January 8 at 6:18 p.m., seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
· 2015 Conservation Commission Meeting Calendar
The Agent noted the revised calendar for 2015 which is also available on the website.
Election of New Chairman
The Agent and the Commissioners had a discussion on the election of a new chairman with the resignation of Mr. Fitzsimmons. It was agreed to address this at the next meeting.
Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Sweet. Vote unanimous: 6-0.
Meeting adjourned 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Daigneault
Recording Secretary
| 
