Laserfiche WebLink
the Commissioners deny this project which is the only way to fix this problem. There <br />was a question about docks. Mr. Daler said docks by their very nature are water <br />dependent and therefore they are not subject to this water dependency test. Docks and <br />wharfs provide access to the public which is a public benefit. This bridge has no public <br />benefit therefore can't get a chapter 91 license. The Agent stated the issue is whether a <br />structure is truly going to inhibit public access to the shore lands for fishing, fowling and <br />navigating. Mr. Daler said Punkhorn Road is private and the island is private and to <br />have some magic public way between these two private pieces is almost unfathomable. <br />There is no public benefit from this bridge. <br />Amy Ball, Horsley and Witten, reiterated they agree with Mr. Baler and with the peer <br />report that it elevates the level performance standards to one of no adverse effects. Mr. <br />Daler and the consultant and others have all agreed that this does not meet the <br />performance standards under the wetlands protection act. They believe the project will <br />result in a great impact to the resource areas and there will be adverse impacts to the <br />shellfish. She said the Commission has been given an application for a bridge and a <br />driveway to an empty island and the Commission has been denied the opportunity to <br />review the full impact of this project. The project will need some additional permitting <br />such as Chapter 91 license and also a water quality certification and also go through <br />MEPA. The full project should be presented. <br />Chuckie Green referred to his submission. He referred to the plans and said there is <br />one thing that has not been talked about. There is approximately a 9 foot slope and <br />there is no mitigation for runoff. The application is incomplete. <br />Steve Peters, Mashpee resident and member of the Wampanoag Tribe, stated in order <br />to make the bridge public it needs to promote the enjoyment and use of the water. He <br />didn't see how this bridge provides any use or enjoyment of the water which is a big <br />distinction between the bridge and the dock where a dock provides access to the use <br />and enjoyment of the water. He said as a town resident he would not have any benefit <br />to this bridge. <br />Jack Vaccaro said they agree they would like to close the hearing out as soon as <br />possible. He wanted to focus on the issues where they continue to disagree with the <br />peer review consultant. He agrees more than he disagrees. He said we need to <br />consider impacts that are more than negligible. He referred to Mr. Creighton's <br />statements to specific resource standards where he feels they cannot meet the <br />performance standards on the salt marsh, land subject to coastal storm flowage and to <br />some extent land under ocean. He started with land under the ocean. Jack said Mr. <br />Creighton stated they needed to show that there would not be any impacts relating to <br />plowing and salting of the driveway. The bridge is proposed as a steel graded structure <br />so snow will not accumulate on this bridge. They would not be permitted to plow the <br />bridge. Jack then addressed the area of salt marsh. They acknowledge there will be <br />impacts and stated supported structures are allowed in salt marshes. Jack said in the <br />salt marsh they have a total of 88 linear feet of bridge and 990 square feet underneath <br />the bridge. They are talking about a relatively small area. They are talking about a <br />graded bridge structure that is going to allow the sunlight through. They are anticipating <br />the salt marsh will do just fine and are willing to monitor that. Beyond that Mr. Creighton <br />was concerned with sand coming off the tires onto the salt marsh. They don't consider <br />that a significant impact. Salt marsh is very good at absorbing material within their <br />