The Harwich Conservation Commission leveled a substantial financial penalty against a local contractor and property owner Wednesday evening following what officials described as an egregious case of unauthorized clear-cutting. The commission voted unanimously to impose a $6,000 total fine for work at 277 Great Western Road, where a coastal bank was reportedly stripped of nearly all vegetation without town oversight. Conservation Agent Amy Usowski alerted the board to the damage, noting that it came to our attention that there had been a lot of clear cutting... about 20 trees had been removed... and all the shrub layer. It was stripped down to dirt.

The contractor for the project, identified as Rodrigo, appeared before the board but offered little defense, stating, I'm here to listen, not to talk. Board members expressed frustration over the severity of the violation, suggesting that typical fine amounts might not be enough of a deterrent for professionals in the industry. Member Wayne Coulson argued that a standard fine would be insufficient, stating 900 sounds a little light... people got to know better. You're in business doing things like this. Chair John Ketchum agreed that a message needed to be sent, noting that one could interpret the situation as $6,000 is being light... ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Member Sophia Pilling added that the responsibility was shared, remarking, I think that at least half of the onus should be on the owner because that's where all of the work started. Resident Dorothy Basset also spoke in favor of a heavy penalty, telling the board, I would advocate for a strong penalty to dissuade people from doing this further. Motion Made by W. Coulson to approve the restoration plan for 277 Great Western Road. Motion Passed 5-0. Motion Made by W. Coulson to fine the contractor $3,000 and the owner $3,000 for the violation. Motion Passed 5-0.

The commission also addressed a year-long delay in addressing a violation at 435 Route 28, where an unpermitted shed remains within a 50-foot no-disturb zone. S. Patel, representing the owner, explained the delay was due to the owner being out of the country, saying He was in India for four months... totally forgot out of his mind... we would like to see if we could cut down the size of the shed at the same location. Chair Ketchum dismissed the request for a smaller shed, stating, There really isn't any excuse for you having just completely ignored things... we never would have given you a permit to build that structure. Motion Made by J. Ketchum to issue an enforcement order to remove the structure and restore the area within 60 days, with evidence of a demolition permit provided within 30 days. Motion Passed 5-0. Motion Made by M. Coleman to impose a $600 fine. Motion Passed 5-0.

Significant debate centered on a Notice of Intent for 11 Riverbend Road, involving the replacement of a degraded wooden bulkhead and the installation of scallop growing nets. Applicant Jeff L explained that the plan is to remove the existing bulkhead and replace it with a new steel bulkhead... it shifts landward about 6 feet where the marsh has eroded. While Agent Usowski supported the bulkhead replacement as a benefit to the salt marsh, several neighbors and their representatives strongly opposed the accompanying scallop floats. Attorney Elizabeth Pile, representing abutters, noted her clients agreed with the bulkhead plan but the second part is the scallop floats and we are not in agreement with that part of the proposal. Resident Noreen questioned the scale of the request, arguing asking for 640 square feet of permanent floats there is a bylaw that only allows 200 square feet... scallops aren't native to the Herring River. Dorothy Hayes added that this project must have an overriding public interest, and there's not one that's apparent to me.

Commission members were more inclined to support the environmental benefits of the bulkhead. Member Vivienne Mulhall-Maguire stated, I generally agree with Amy and I am in support of the project. Member Sophia Pilling focused on logistical safeguards, noting I'm wondering about the conditions... with the no work and equipment from the land. Vice Chair Mark Coleman noted that the project required three distinct variances but agreed with the restoration aspects. Motion Made by W. Coulson to approve the plan for 11 Riverbend Road pending the review of the order of conditions. Motion Passed 4-0-1, with Member V. Mulhall-Maguire abstaining.

In other shoreline activity, the commission authorized critical repairs for 11 and 15 Shore Road. Attorney Anthony told the board these repairs are critical... number 15 is only 19 feet from the existing concrete wall and that concrete wall has been undermined. Engineer Dan Coto proposed a stone revetment to reinforce that wall... and build a regular small seawall in front of that. Agent Usowski recommended approval but requested the nourishment focus on the rocks rather than the beach to ensure longevity. Chair Ketchum requested that plastic facing on the existing bulkhead be removed before construction. Motion Made by W. Coulson to approve the plan for 11 and 15 Shore Road. Motion Passed 5-0.

The commission also granted several residential approvals, including a request from John and Roberta Shaw at 175 Gorham Road to enclose 108 square feet. John Shaw explained the project would connect two wings of the house, allowing us to create a kitchen great room type area. Motion Made by M. Coleman for approval with a Negative 2 determination. Motion Passed 5-0. At 13 Harden Road, Diane Embriani requested a backyard fence for her pets, saying I just want to fence in an area for my dogs so I can open the door and let them out and keep them safe. Neighbor Peter Le Point raised concerns about shared access to Muddy Creek, asking how that might impact our shared right of access. Motion Made by M. Coleman to approve a Negative 2 and Negative 3 determination for 13 Harden Road with 300 square feet of mitigation plantings. Motion Passed 5-0.

Finally, the board reviewed two amended orders for significant home projects. At 117 Riverside Drive, an architectural change increased the house footprint slightly. Motion Made by M. Coleman to approve the amended order of conditions. Motion Passed 5-0. At 74 Depot Road, new owner and engineer Peter Lavoy proposed moving a planned replacement home further from the wetlands, stating the original house was 101 feet away from the wetlands... the new house location, the closest point is 152 feet away. Neighbor Michael Pay praised the new plan, saying I'm glad you're going to be able to salvage the old cottage... it hurt me to see all those trees come down. Motion Made by M. Coleman to approve the request for an amended order of conditions for 74 Depot Road. Motion Passed 5-0.