My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/13/2020 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
2/13/2020 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2021 5:00:41 PM
Creation date
1/26/2021 3:03:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/13/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
and replanting with native shrubs and beach grass. Owner of record: New Seabury Maushop <br /> Condominium Owners. <br /> Brad Holmes & Norman Hayes, both MA certified arborists and Wetlands Scientists, presented <br /> plans. They noted the plants would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, and that overall this is not just a <br /> removal, they are trying to be proactive. All work will be done by hand, no ground disturbance. <br /> It's a fairly minimal project. Agent met on site. Maushop was issued vista pruning permit awhile <br /> back, with the condition of in perpetuity, so the permit is in place for that. One of the things <br /> mentioned by the Assistant Agent on a previous site visit is that he referenced Regulation 29 <br /> (Buffer Zones and Buffer Strips). There were more cedars on this site than what you see today, <br /> they have disappeared for a variety of reasons. Some intentional cutting, some just dying off <br /> from exposure to the elements. I'm not one to advocate the loss of vegetative strata in any <br /> situation. The cedars in the background (pictured) are not obstructing anyone's view. Perhaps <br /> for the people who are set back from the water, which I do not think the Commission should <br /> take into consideration. I'm personally not advocating for the removal of cedars. I think if <br /> they've survived wind throw at this point, there's no reason to think that they wouldn't continue <br /> to survive. I'm not recommending the removal of cedars, but I do certainly recommend the <br /> removal of invasive species. Mr. Sweet clarified that the olive tree and bittersweet can go. <br /> Agent said yes. There's some natural damage, some is rogue cutting. That makes me even <br /> more apprehensive about removing the cedars, where they've removed some without <br /> authorization already. Mr. McKay and Mr. Smith both agreed with the Agent. Mr. Hayes wanted <br /> to mention that those cedar trees were planted in 1993. Although the species is native, the <br /> trees themselves were not native to the site, they were landscaped. If they can't be removed, <br /> we can work with the Agent to clean them up. Agent said just because they are landscaped, <br /> doesn't mean there aren't naturally occurring in the area. Mr. McKay said if they aren't invasive, <br /> we really can't remove them. Mr. Holmes said again, they are replacing at a 2:1 ratio, and they <br /> are trying to add some diversity. They want to be proactive and do this while it's still <br /> manageable. Agent said he understands, but he never advocates based on speculation no <br /> matter how likely or unlikely that may be. I think it sets a bad precedent. If there is rogue <br /> cutting, we'll deal with it with enforcement. Mr. Sweet asked if there's anything that needs to be <br /> replaced or could be replanted.Agent said yes, where the invasives are. I'm looking at this from <br /> a precedent standpoint. I'm fine with pruning to alleviate views. Mr. McKay said he doesn't see <br /> how they can approve cutting the trees that aren't invasive, it's not a viable position for the <br /> Commission to take. <br /> Motion: Mr. Smith moved to close and issue with the requirement that the applicant work <br /> with the Agent on the adjusted mitigation plan and removal of trees, not the cedars. Mr. <br /> Dalton seconded. <br /> Vote: 5-0 unanimous <br /> 6:09 Joseph F. & Lisa A. Bohnenberger, Ockway Bay. (Applicant) Proposed Aquaculture project NOI <br /> within water of Ockway Bay approximately 1.1 acre in size. Owner of record: Commonwealth <br /> of Massachusetts. Continued from 1123 to allow for DEP review. <br /> Per the DEP policy and Regulation 3, we cannot open a hearing without a DEP number. The <br /> applicants are aware and requested a continuance. <br /> Motion: Mr. Smith moved for a continuance until 3/12120 at 6:03pm. Mr. McKay <br /> seconded. <br /> Vote: 5-0 unanimous <br /> 6:12 Eric P. Rothenberg & Pamela Ely, 18 Spoondrift Circle. Proposed installation of two NOI <br /> additional piles and float to existing pier, ramp and float structure. Continued from 1123 to allow <br /> for DEP review. <br /> Eric Rothenberg presented plans. Agent said he's received comments from both the <br /> Harbormaster and Shellfish Commissioner. Not viable shellfish habitat, not much salt marsh. <br /> Harbormaster has no concerns with navigation. When it comes to dock installation we want to <br /> be notified who they are, to be sure they have the proper experience and that they know piles <br /> are to be driven, not jetted. No comments from Marine Fisheries, no recommendation of float <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.