Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck Road North <br />Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br />Ms. Waygan noted dredging causes a huge environmental impact. A lot of people don't want to <br />dredge. <br />Clean Water Bylaws <br />Mr. Lehrer is meeting with Community Development, Natural Resources, Building <br />Commissioner, Conservation, and the Board of Health to discuss these issues. They felt like <br />they weren't as aligned as they should have been at the recent Town Meeting, and voters <br />essentially suffered so they would like to correct that. They would like engagement strategies <br />and education in trying to prepare for October and education campaigns going forward. The <br />three articles that are priorities for conservation and natural resources are the wetlands buffer <br />increasing from 75ft. to 150ft., prohibiting the use of fill in floodplains, and the fertilizer <br />prohibition. These are the three top measures to take on water quality issues affecting the <br />town. As it pertains to the wetlands buffer and prohibition on fill, the biggest detriment to that <br />process was some odd data of the stakeholders that needs work. He has done simple analysis <br />on the assessor's database to discern the impact to private property owners. It's never to <br />restrict or prohibit a property that has been maintained in a family for years. These bylaws <br />resulted in 28% of Mashpee properties being subject to taking by the town, which is grossly <br />inaccurate. For the increase in the wetlands buffer to 150 ft. is a relatively conservative <br />methodology, but really only dealing with about 30 properties impacted by that bylaw. It might <br />be even less because some are unbuildable already. When the Conservation Agent was <br />making his presentation to the Select Board, he stated the policy objective was to increase his <br />department's ability to improve the mitigation measures on already developed properties, not <br />to prohibit someone from building on something they already have or want to build on in the <br />future. That regulatory change already contemplated waivers of requirements and hardships <br />and asked him to come prepared to spell it out in black and white for property owners with <br />exactly what conservation is planning on doing in the event of someone whose depth of their <br />lot is only 150 ft. Obviously a constructed home would need more area than that. There is <br />substantial clarity that will be needed from those small subset of property owners to <br />understand that issue. <br />Similarly, with the prohibition of fill requirement, he can replicate the data. There is only about <br />17 or 18 vacant undeveloped properties in all of the floodplain. Maybe there is one in Poppy. <br />The presentation of data in proposition to this article was grossly exaggerated and incredibly <br />irresponsible. It is about providing clarity for that very small subset of property owners so they <br />understand the process. This package of articles will be inclusive of the tree bylaw, and they <br />are already thinking about the workshops. First, they will be working with these particular <br />property owners, notifying, going through regulatory changes, and helping them understand <br />what those impacts could potentially be, but also letting them know what the permitting <br />process will look like. They can have a degree of confidence so this can move forward. <br />15 <br />