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