2/12/2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

of the site is located within an area mapped as priority habitat and habitat for rare species (Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program). Mr. Holmes stated that ECR did a site review to review the existing conditions of the site with the focus on the maintained mowed area of the site. The mowed area contains a volleyball area and park benches. The mowed area consists of more than 50% wetland 7 herbaceous plants, Based on SCR's site review the mowed area of the site meets the classification of a bordering vegetated wetland consisting of a wet meadow environment. He said, based on the Association and review of aerial imagery, the mowed area of the site has been maintained since the 1960s. Mr. Holmes stated that he was able to document the mowed area of the site is a wetland resource area under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. The maintenance of mowing and use of the site as a recreational area is a grandfathered use that predates the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Town of Mashpee Wetlands Protection Bylaw. He said Briarwood intends to maintain the mowing activities as it has since the creation of the recreational area, but proposes to enhance the existing conditions of the site by removing the weeping willow trees and replacing with native wetland saplings and shrubs. He concluded by saying that based on the findings, it is their position that the ongoing maintenance mowing at the site is a grandfathered activity and should not be considered a violation of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations and Town of Mashpee Wetlands Protection Bylaw. There was much discussion. The Agent stated under the regulation Chapter 172 he believed that mowing is altering because it can destroy vegetation. He cited under regulation 24, which defines various Conservation terms, he is not recommending any retroactive fines or retroactive permitting, His recommendation is to cease any future mowing in this area. He said that this is a case being made through aerial photographs and photographs of the area to show a consistent timeline of mowing in this area in order to establish a precedent of grandfathered right to continue this activity and justify it in the past. The Agent said from aerial photographs it is not apparent whether mowing has taken place or not. Photographs and mowing receipts which they have provided are scattered. The Agent does not feel the evidence presented shows a consistent timeline of mowing activity. The Agent stated based on his personal observations at this site he has seen this herbaceous wetland in full grow out condition. He felt there has not been a compelling argument made for grandfathering. There was much discussion on the grandfathering. The Agent stated the area where the mowing activity has taken place is not within a buffer zone to a resource area but rather directly in a wetland resource area (BVVV), thus the regulatory statute {310 CMR 10.02(b) cited by the Mr. Brodsky does not apply to this situation as that section of the regulations is premised on Activities within the buffer zone. The Agent feels the information provided does not show a clear and consistent timeline to establish an argument for exemption. The Agent claims that there has been a substantial amount of time that this area was not consistently mowed and it took on wetland characteristics. On multiple site visits to this property from 2007 and 2010, the Agent witnessed this wetland area in a non -mowed condition. He said he was approached by the former president of Briarwood Association to find out what the association could do about the mosquito problem that the wetland was causing and the Agent referred him to mosquito control. The former association president also asked about permission to put in