Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-12_Response to Comments-signed100 Commerce Way, Suite 5, Woburn, MA 01801 | T (781) 935-6889 | F (781) 935-2896 www.allenmajor.com Civil Engineers ♦ Environmental Consultants ♦ Land Surveyors ♦ Landscape Architects Copyright ©2026 Allen & Major Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved March 12, 2026 To: Ed Hoopes Conservation Administrator Town of Barnstable 230 South St. Hyannis, MA 02601 A&M Project #: 3586-01 RE: 536 Shootflying Hill Road Map 193 Lot 29 Centerville, MA 02632 Response to Comments Copy: Dear Mr. Hoopes, On behalf of our client, the Remmes Family, Allen & Major Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter in response to comments from the conservation commission, received February 20, 2026. For ease of review, the original comments are provided below, along with A&M’s responses in bold. We thank you in advance for your consideration. First, there is an old Order (SE3-4807) issued to Joan Remmes-Foy on 5/20/2009 for septic upgrade, retaining wall, and patio. This needs to be closed out with a COC request. The applicant was notified in 2018 the COC was overdue but it was never pursued apparently – on either side. Please initiate the COC request so that the project can be closed out and the order removed from their title. A&M Response: A COC will be filed in order to close out this outstanding item. Second, an item that came up at the meeting (raised by the abutter – Mr. Tlapa) concerns the ROW on the west side of the Remmes property. There seemed to be some confusion as to whether there was planting that had occurred on the ROW. According to the town Assessors Department records, the ROW is owned by the Town of Barnstable. If part of the existing mitigation area is planted on the ROW, that may not be counted as mitigation area. We have also made the Asset Management office for the Town aware of this possibility so they will be looking into any encroachment issues. A&M Response: Any of the proposed plantings have been removed from that area and are not included in any mitigation area calculations. Some g eneral comments regarding mitig ation The main goal of Barnstable Conservation Commissions Buffer Zone Regulations (Chapter 704) is the protection of the 50’ buffer. Consequently, they strive, when considering activities and hardscape within the buffer zone, to enhance and protect the 50’ buffer to the maximum, feasible extent. Their goal is to achieve a 50’ undisturbed buffer, or as close to undisturbed, as possible. Therefore, when granting hardscape variances in either the 50’ buffer or 50’-100’ buffer, their goal is to maximize the mitigation planting within the 50’ buffer. As a result, they want to see mitigation planting plans that fill as much of the 50’ buffer as is practicable. A&M Response: The updated plans have focused the mitigation areas within 50’ buffer area to the extent practicable. Barnstable Conservation Commission require that mitigation planting’s must consist of species that are considered native to Barnstable County. You should consult the Barnstable County Extension Service List of Native Plants for specific details. Arborvitae, Hydrangea, and Karl Foerster are not native species. A&M Response: Although Hydrangea, and Karl Foerster are not native species, they are however listed as recommended species by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) for plantings help control coastal erosion, prevent storm damage, reduce stormwater pollution, and enhance wildlife habitat. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/coastal-landscaping-in-massachusetts-plant-list#coastal-beach-plant-list. 'Karl Foerster' is a popular and attractive cultivar of calamagrostis x acutiflora. It spreads slowly by rhizomes and is best propagated by division in the spring or early fall. This plant is highly resistant to deer and rabbit grazing, and it is tolerant of wet soils, drought, and clay soils. It should also be noted that the 'Karl Foerster' is sterile and does not self-seed. Remmes – NOI Comments A&M Project # 3586-01 536 Shootflying Hill Road March 12, 2026 Page 2 of 4 Mitigation areas should be filled with plants that show a diversity in both species composition and vegetative height. In other words, at least 3-4 native species that will also provide varying size within the species and heights across the species and throughout the planting area(s). A&M Response: The revised plans have an updated mitigation areas that is more diverse in native plantings. Mulch in mitigation planting areas is not allowed. Mulch IS allowed under the drip line of plants to aid in moisture retention and to minimize competition with weeds and only until the plant is established (usually for 1-2 growing seasons). Once plants are planted in the mitigation area, you should either plant the area between and around plants with a native seed mix, or, allow the area to naturalize (however, leaving the area to naturalize often leads to colonization of the area with non-native and invasive plants). Regardless, whatever way you go, it should be noted on the plan. A&M Response: The existing mulch beds around the previously installed plantings directly adjacent to the existing retaining wall has been noted to be removed and replaced with landscaping stones to help control weed growth. The proposed mitigation areas along the western side of the property have been noted to have conservation seed mix spread between the plantings. The mitigation area to the east of the property has been noted to be allowed to naturalize. Hardscape Based on my calculations, I think it is going to be very difficult for you to come up with enough mitigation area to offset the unpermitted hardscape. I am trying to match your numbers but it is hard because you don’t call out square footage for specific features. For example, you state in your mitigation table – New Patio Area = 443 SF. I am not sure where your number came from, I calculated the size of the patio AND walkway at approximately 450 SF. See the figure below (the patio and walkway are outlined in Orange. Assuming I have the correct number, 450 SF of hardscape would require 1800 SF of mitigation planting area. A&M Response: I would caution against utilizing aerial imagery for area take-off due to the lack of precision. The updated plans better illustrate the areas of disturbances calculations and proposed mitigation. Remmes – NOI Comments A&M Project # 3586-01 536 Shootflying Hill Road March 12, 2026 Page 3 of 4 Proposed and Potential Areas for Mitigation Planting in the 50’ buffer From your mitigation table: The former patio was approved under SE3-4807 to be 8’ x 14’ = 112 SF. Aerial and on-the- ground photos in our files show a patio of brick with about 112 SF of coverage. You state the former patio is 174 SF but I don’t see anything that supports that. Also, where does the 421 SF of new disturbance come from? There also appears to be an area of small rocks that have been piled up against the big-block retaining wall. I do not see where this was permitted. It seems to show up in aerial photos around 2023 or 2024? A&M Response: The table has been updated for the new mitigation areas, in addition to updating the former patio area. The 421sf of new disturbance listed in the table is associated with the construction of the permeable paver walkway. The small area of rocks will be removed by the property owner moving forward. Proposed and Available Mitigation Areas On your site plan, Sheet L-101 dated 1/28/26, the 1,017 SF of proposed mitigation planting area in the 50’-100’ is not acceptable as mitigation. Since the goal of mitigation is to enhance and fill the 50’ buffer to the maximum feasible extent, the Commission will require all practical areas of the 50’ buffer to be filled first. On that same plan, you are proposing 1,100 SF of mitigation planting area. What is planted or growing in this area already? Is it currently well vegetated or is it more lawn like? Your plan notes suggest that the area is mostly vegetated and that you are just planting 40 lowbush blueberry interspersed through the proposed planting area. If that is what is being done, then the only credit you can claim is going to be the total area of the footprint of the plants planted (e.g., if the average LB Blueberry plant grows to a max spread of 2’ then 40 LBB plants will give you 80 SF of coverage (40 plants x 2’ spread each plant). If you wanted to use the entire area as mitigation, then the area would need to be brought back to bare earth (presumably leaving trees where they are) planting the area with proposed plantings, then seeding the space between plantings with native seed mix. I would not suggest this route, especially as I am not sure what is growing there right now. A&M Response: The mitigation area along the western side of the property is currently a sparsely vegetated lawn area. The mitigation area along the eastern side of the property is sparsely vegetated with mainly invasive species such as poison ivy and briars intermixed between some larger existing trees. This area would be more beneficial as buffer mitigation is the existing invasive or nuisance vegetation being removed and re-established with the blueberry bushes. Further complicating this is the fact that under DEP File# SE3-4807 (the file that needs to be closed out), very much of this same area was supposed to be planted with 30 1-gal. LB Blueberry plants as mitigation for the 8’ x 14’ patio permitted under that file (along with the block retaining wall and septic upgrade). See below, the snippet of the planting plan I took from that file. The plan is dated REVISED 5/13/09 by Brian Grady. Today, the Commission adds a special condition to any Order of Conditions involving mitigation planting that states the mitigation planting area shall be planted and once planted the area shall be retained. They did not have that specification in 2009 when the Order for SE3-4807 was written, so the Commission may give you some leeway with that, you would have to ask. A&M Response: The property owner is agreeable to re-establishing the eastern mitigation area as noted on the previous plans be Brian Grady. We would respectfully request that this area has the same stipulations as noted in 2009 when the Order for SE3-4807 was issued. Remmes – NOI Comments A&M Project # 3586-01 536 Shootflying Hill Road March 12, 2026 Page 4 of 4 Planting Plan, revised 5/13/09 by Brian Grady In the figure below, the area outlined in pink is one of the mitigation areas you are claiming. It covers approximately 325 SF if the area is cut off at the property line. I believe the area between the 2 thick white lines is the ROW. It looks as though there may be an additional 47 SF that is on the ROW. Not sure about this as the property lines on these aerials maybe a few feet off reality. I would defer to your surveyed lines for confirmation. The area outlined in green is planted area = approximately 106 SF. These 2 areas combined, then, account for 478 SF of planting area. If the white line on the right represents the Remmes western property line (in common with the ROW), then the lawn area outlined in BLUE could be converted to additional mitigation planting area (+426 SF). If the left white line is the Remmes western property line, the area outlined in LIGHT BLUE would provide additional possible mitigation planting area (+217 SF). These 2 areas represent an additional 643 SF (approximately) of potential mitigation area. That brings you to approximately 1,121 SF of mitigation planting area – you would still need an additional 679 SF (1800 – 1121 = 679). THAT is assuming my numbers are correct and there are no other forms of hardscape that need to be mitigated for (i.e., the new disturbance amount on your mitigation table). A&M Response: We would caution against utilizing aerial imagery for area take-off due to the lack of precision. The updated plans better illustrate the areas of disturbances calculations and proposed mitigation which do not incorporate the existing public right-of-way along the western side of the property. Very truly yours, ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael A. Malynowski, PE Branch Manager