MLT Looks to Keep Plan Low-Budget

            Mike Huguenin from the Mattapoisett Land Trust (MLT) wasn’t thrilled when Mattapoisett Conservation Commission Chairman Mike King relayed some of the conservation agent’s suggestions for the MLT’s plan to eradicate 20,000 square-feet of invasive phragmites on property located at the end of Noyes Avenue known as Newmann Preserve.

            First thing during the May 15 meeting, Huguenin, on behalf of the MLT and Georgia Glick, said he had not yet received a file number form the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the invasive species eradication plan. Absent that, King said, the process that night would be limited to opening the public hearing and discussing the application, but they would have to continue the hearing until they have a DEP file number.

            Huguenin was hoping for a quick approval process, and asked if the commission could approve the application subject to getting that number, but King had to deny that request.

            “I think that would be violating our own policy,” King said.

            Huguenin’s concern is that time is of the essence when it comes to the proper schedule of treating phragmites, which must first be cleared of dead stalks and then sprayed at a specific point in the plant’s growth cycle. He was hoping to begin the first week of June.

            King had no problems with the plan, nor did two other commission members, but member Trevor Francis pointed to a number of Conservation Agent Elizabeth Leidhold’s comments that caught his attention. To Huguenin’s chagrin, Francis read that list, which included 

 the need for a wetland delineation plan, and she pointed out that no stamped survey plan was provided to distinguish the locations of invasive versus noninvasive species to mitigate any loss of saltmarsh area. Leidhold referenced similar projects – Maple Road and Aucoot Road – and suggested, like those projects, this one should have a wetland scientist perform ongoing monitoring.

            Leidhold suggested a vegetation monitoring plan developed by a wetland scientist and attach it to the Order of Conditions upon approval. She also asked about a long-term plan to restore the saltmarsh, commenting that it was a relatively large area to treat, and asked if the MLT would be planting any native saltmarsh grasses to replace the phragmites to keep them from returning.

            “As we all know, that’s extremely expensive,” said Huguenin. “I would argue this is not a large area, 20,000 square feet, max.”

            Huguenin added that he had spoken with someone from the Buzzards Bay Coalition who he said told him the eradication would likely be a success due to the isolated location. The tides are getting higher also, he said, allowing salt water to reach the phragmites and kill them off.

            The neighbors to the project, Huguenin said, are paying for the eradication budgeted at $2,500, and worried this might evolve into a “$10,000 project.”

            “Unfortunately, [Leidhold] is not here, but we have to take her advice under consideration,” said King. “I think between now and then we as a commission will look at the other projects … and make a determination on what’s appropriate.”

            The hearing was continued until June 10.

            Also during the meeting, the commission decided to continue the RDA public hearing for Andre Rieksts, Scott and Margo Wilson-Atkinson, Park Lane, in order to have the project’s representative, Doug Schneider of D. Schneider & Associates, consult with Liedhold over the possibility of filing the project as an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation.

            The Park Lane property is 8.2 acres and required 102 wetlands flags.

            “[Leidhold] suggested that 102 flags under [a Request for Determination of Applicability] is excessive,” said King.

            Schneider didn’t think that would be necessary, saying he could have the wetlands line confirmed via a regular RDA filing and was simply seeking that the commission check off the box that states the line is confirmed as accurate.

            “The big difference between an [ANRAD] request and an [RDA] is the filing fee,” said Schneider.

            That fee would be $2,000 for the ANRAD, of which the Town would split half-and-half with the state, and $0 for the RDA.

            King explained recent discussions amongst the commission, the town administrator, and the finance Committee regarding fees and a shortfall in revenue to run the conservation office.

            “We have to operate in a more transactional manner in order to keep the office going, and we’ve been operating at a deficit since the beginning of the Wetlands Protection Act, basically,” said King. “I would say that a walk in the woods, though, to cover 102 flags … is not a small amount of work.”

            King looked to the rest of the commission and polled the members on their thoughts of collecting the fee as an ANRAD.

            “It’s a tricky situation,” said John Jacobson. “It takes a lot of the agent’s time, but I don’t know if there’s a justification … for the classification to fall under ANRAD.”

            King suggested a continuation so the commission could contact Leidhold to discuss the filing classification and fee, and also to allow for further time to review the delineation.

            The hearing was continued until June 10.

            The commission approved the NOI for The Preserve at Bay Club, LLC, Split Rock Lane, to extend the road with associated grading and drainage. This application was the “last keystone” to the project, King said.

            The NOI hearing for Scott Snow, 6 & 8 Prospect Road, was continued until June 10, as the commission adhered to its policy of requiring updated plans a minimum of two weeks before the hearing date. King commented that he foresaw no problems with the project and he was pleased with the perc test results.

            The continued public hearing for an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation for The Gingras Nominee Trust c/o Carol Lawrence, Trustee was closed out and approved. The representative for the Randall Road project said one additional wetlands flag was added at the request of the conservation agent, and a potential vernal pool was noted on the plan in anticipation of future certification.

            In other business, the commission issued Negative 3 determinations for the following Request for Determination of Applicability applications: David Riquinha, 26 Mattakiset Road, for an 8’x14’ prefabricated shed and bluestone patio; Jean Ryan, 22 Angelica Avenue, for a 14’x24’ shed on existing lawn within the velocity zone; Allen Duarte and Jane Fagundes, 16 River Bed Lane, for a 14’x28’ in-ground pool, fence, and pool shed.

            The commission issued Certificates of Compliance to Leigh Oler, 25 Grandview Avenue; and Paul Rioux, 12 Laura Lane. The commission closed out the Request for Certificate of Compliance for N. Douglas Schneider & Associates, Inc., 0 Aucoot Road, because the work never commenced. The lien was removed from the property.

            The public hearing for the RDA filed by David & Jennifer Kaiser, 54 Ocean Drive, was continued until June 10 at the request of the applicant.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for June 10 at 6:30 pm at the Mattapoisett Town Hall.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry

Leave A Comment...

*