6/2/2011 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

rights. The Agent states that is Land Under ocean, Lard Containing Shellfish and is a resource area that is protected under the Wetlands Proteption Act. The chairman asks if this proposal has already been presented to the Board of Selectman in which Agent McManus states that it has and was approved. The Agent reads for the record the letter from the Division of Marine Fisheries who had conducted a survey of the site. The Agent also reads 310 C.MR 10.34.Land containing Shellfish bylaw for the record which basically state that projects approved by the Division of Marine Fisheries that are specifically intended to increase the productivity of land containing shellfish may be permitted and aquaculture projects approved by the appropriate state and local authorities may also be permitted. Agent McManus feels that Popponesset Bay is becoming impacted by nitrogen loading and that you can physically see it in the form of yearly algae blooms. He has not seen any documentation that shows adverse impact from shellfish aquaculture projects. Mr. Sweet asks why this particular area was selected. Mr. cook responds that they needed another site to be able to "over-winter" oysters since the other site is very shallow. He explains than they had looked all over town and found issues with other areas. This location has shown to have very few shellfish and a good flow current. It is not directly in front of any homes and he had found it was the optimal site. Agent McManus asks of the anchoring system and buoys in regards to navigational concerns considering how well they are marked. Mr. Monroe states that the anchor system is shown on the two schemes submitted. Rick York, Shellfish Constable, states that the benefit to the town from the shellfish farms are not only from filtering nitrogen and algae but also that the shellfish, before they are harvested, spawn which are carried by the tide and seed other areas. Mr. York believes that this will give opportunity to establish a larger population of oysters. Agent McManus asks if they will be marked with buoy markers for navigational purposes. Mr;. cook responds there are nine points that will need to be marked with a yellow buoy which is required by law. Mr. cook also mentions that the cages will be under water at all times barring a hurricane which might drain the entire bay before corning on. Agent McManus reads DEP's comments which state a Chapter 91 license may be required. Brian Wall, Attorney, who is representing 21 property owners that live in the vicinity but also is representing 11 separate properties including Leslie caffyn who owns property than is directly upland from the site. Mr. Wall continues with pointing certain statements within the ol: one being that Mr. cook's IOI states 40 squame feet but that Mr. cook had presented before the Board of Selectmen and stated than his project will be one acre in size with 3000 4'x4' cages in the grant area. Mr. wall's calculations show than the project will be about 50,000 squ. ft. which is more than an acre. Mr. Wall also does not believe that the cages will always be below water at all time because according to the plans submitted} shows a depth at the landward edge of the grant is about one foot. Agent McManus questions the impact on resource with this observance and Mr. Wall says that the cages are in the velocity zone and will effect tidal action. Mr. wall feels that the project being in the velocity zone is a very important issue. Mr. Wall also states that he does not believe that the IOI is complete. Section 3 states that the applicant shall have obtained all local obtainable permits prior to coming before Conservation. He states that Mr. Cook should have obtained two local permits; one is a license issued by-Selectmen. Mr. cook has applied but that action Inas been appealed to the Barnstable Superior Court. Secondly, Mr. Wall feels that there are significant zoning issues as this area is a residential district and aquaculture is not allowed. He also states that there is a provision in the zoning bylaws which concerns development in a flood zone and it specifically prohibits any development which is defined as any man-made operation occurring in a velocity zone. Finally, there is a 50' zoning setback from any wetland resource area under Mashp e's zoning bylaw. There is an exemption than is allowable for things like piers, docks, bridges or boardwalks and he states than aquaculture is not exempted. Mashpee's regulations require ars applicant to have a letter from the licensed Massachusetts attorney certified to