2/19/2009 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

have a history of illegal cutting as indicated in photos in such locations as the top of the bank, pruned hedgerows, illegal vista corridor and topped trees. Agent McManus further noted that in creating vista corridors for condos, not every owner will have an equal view, which sometimes causes rogue cutting. As a result, Agent McManus recommends that the Commission consider requiring the hiring of an outside consultant to determine prior violations and its cumulative affect on the proposed corridors, as well as to monitor and submit reports regarding ongoing vista pruning. Agent McManus also does not recommend maintenance in perpetuity given the prior violations. Mr. Wall stated that all condo owners are repeatedly reminded that they are not allowed to cut beyond the top of the bank. The Board of Trustees does not condone any cutting, and in fact, when there was a violation, a substantial mitigation plan was enforced and the cost was passed on to the unit owner responsible. Mr. Wall believes that the cutting occurs because condo owners think no cutting is allowed and have taken matters into their own hands. Condo owners are now aware that this application is being considered, so Mr. Wall believes that illegal cutting should not occur. Agent McManus stated for the record that he has seen no evidence of mitigation plantings on the property, only stones placed at the top of the bank. Mr. Talbott does not recall the specific violations from when he sat on the Conservation Commission but does remember there was an enforcement order. Mr. Talbott believes that providing a view corridor, and offering a more generous concession rather than less generous, would discourage condo owners from cutting on their own. The Chair requested clarification about the location for the Conservation Agent's suggestion to re-stake, to which Agent McManus stated the staking should occur at the bottom of the coastal bank. Assistant Agent Leidhold further indicated the location on the plan as approximately along the tree line. Mr. Allen noted that Units 40-47 has strips of woods that are less than the view corridor. Agent McManus emphasized that he is not suggesting the Commission deny the applicant a right to a view corridor but given past history, the Commission should ensure compliance to protect the resource area. Agent McManus would like the staking to be redone and compliance ensured through monitoring. To monitor the project through 4453G, an unbiased consultant would be hired by the applicant to monitor the pruning and assure compliance, submitting bi-monthly reports. The Chair asked about Natural Heritage to which Agent McManus stated that the project was out of their jurisdiction, but that the Commission should always take into consideration the affect of a project on wildlife habitat in a resource area. The Chair also asked about the Wetland Protection Act to which Assistant Leidhold responded that if over 50 linear feet of bank is impacted, the state regulations require a wildlife habitat evaluation. Mr. Mates questioned the location of the staking if it is already stated in the regulations 10.54 (4)(a)(5). Mr. Wall responded that the Mashpee guidelines are not regulations, with no authority of law, but a policy adopted by the Commission to uniformly consider applications. Mr. Wall does not feel that the guidelines are clear as it relates to condominiums since they were written to address the needs of a single family home. Mr. Mates agreed that if the guidelines are not clear it should work against the Commission and not the applicant, particularly since they have drafted their proposal in the spirit of the guidelines. The Commission discussed their interest in re-staking and requesting the wildlife habitat evaluation. Agent McManus confirmed that buffer zone activity in Chapter 172 Bylaw is a regulation under Regulation 29. Mr. Wall referenced page 76 in the Bylaw stating that policies are adopted to create consistency. Mr. Talbott added that the guidelines are the strictest in the state and based on scientific information that determines amount of pruning with no impact, suggesting that a wildlife habitat study would be unnecessary. Mr. Talbott pointed out that vista pruning is considered a minor activity with removal of only 20% of saplings. The Chair responded that with so many corridors there is bound to be an impact and that the State Wetland Regulations require the wildlife habitat study. Agent McManus clarified that up to 20% of saplings with less than 5" diameter can be removed. Mr. Pinaud felt that the Agents should be supported with a request that the property be re-staked. Agent McManus recommends that the Commission request re-staking at the edge of the wetland resource area and the hiring of a consultant to monitor the pruning activity and assess the illegal cutting and mitigation. Mr. Slavinsky requested a continuance on behalf of the applicant. 3