6/30/2011 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

i purposes are not allowed. How will he maintain any of this equipment that breaks off if he has no property rights to go above mean low water? Mr. wall's third point is regarding Regulation 17 which is coastal resource areas. He says that the general standard that is applicable to all projects in the bylaw will not have an unacceptable significant cumulative effect. Mr. wall did not hear Mr. Cook say anything about this. The coastal area, which Mashpee has adopted a much more heightened standard, says there shall be no adverse impact. 11th. wall still feels that the recreational interest is the biggest concern and he continues with reading the regulation for the record. Mr. wall states that there will be an adverse impact upon recreational interests and that Mr. Cook has not provided credible evidence than there will be no adverse impacts so he feels that this project should not be approved. Chairman Fitzsimmons thanks the public and the great interest that they have shorn. Mr. Gurnee comments that he feels that the anchoring system is still an issue and needs to be addressed. Mr. Allen referenced an existing oyster farm in Wellfleet that has had no affect on local surrounding property values. Mr. Gurnee feels that Mashpee is not required to protect all recreational issues in all areas otherwise there would be no docks permitted as they would get in the war of ka akers and swimmers. Chairman Fitzsimmons says that originally he was for the project but now hearing about safety concerns, aesthetic values and recreational issues, he feels that their cannot be disnnissed easily. IIIb. Sweet asks Agent McManus where the language is in the bylaws that addresses the protection of views and the Agent responds that there is not any specific language for that subject. Mr. Gurnee states that the cages will not be above the water and will not be seen. Mr. Wall disagrees with Mr. Gurnee and states that from an elevated point of Ms. Caffy n 3s property, you can see downward into the water but another concern is the maintenance activity associated.with the project. Mr. Cook responds to one of the concerns that Mr. Wall had and that was the fact that the PVC pipes will not be driven, that they are will actually be bring flat and used as stand-offs. Mr. Cook informs the public that there is a benefit to this project as these cages gill act like reefs and provide habitat and protection for multiple organisms frequently serving as nursery grounds for fish and other shellfish such as juvenile lobsters. He also mentions an oyster farm.of approximately one acre can compensate for the nitrogenous waste of 40-50 coastal inhabitants. Chairman Fitzsimmons mentions that there were a few adverse comments that were expressed about the conduct of the Conservation Agent, Dreg McManus and he would like to state that they were out of order. The Chairman continues sabring that Drew McManus has been the Agent for several gears and that he himself has been on the Board for 21 years which Mr. McManus is the finest agent that they have ever had. They are very lucky to have him and he should be proud of his performance. Motion made and,seconded: In favor: dice Chairman Shaw; Brad Sweet, Lloyd Allen. Mark Gurnee, Opposed; Chairman Fitzsimmons and John Rogers -Notice of Intent is carried to Close and Issue 7:09 Colin Dan el (760 a tuit Road) Permit grandfathered dock- RDAF Resource Area:Land Under Water MateMate6al submitted* Computer is a fG S MaplPhotos 6113.11 Owner Mr. Dangel wouId like to permit his grandfathered dock that has been on the property for o+gears. It was maintained approximately 25 gears ago. Agent McManus states that he did inspect the dock and confirmed its grandfathered status. The Agent explains to Mr. Rangel that he must place property identification on the dock and float (house address) W Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried for a Negative Determination i