1/8/2015 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

system. There are other minor impacts that are associated to changes to water circulation, how the bridge piles in the channel might some how affect the water circulation that might result in scour, how the presence of the bridge could change the circulation which will be address by the engineer Stan Humphrey. Mr. Vaccaro spoke about Shellfish York's comments referring to the potential conflict with the restoration area at the southern tip at Gooseberry Island. The area has been greatly affected over the recent years There is a fair amount of degradation that has occurred there and also on the island and that is why they targeted that area. He said they are certainly willing to work with Mr. York because if Mr. York feels the restoration on the southern tip has extended to far seaward they can bring that in an provide salt marsh restoration elsewhere on the site. Stan Humphreys, Consulting Engineer for the applicants, referred to two documents submitted. The performance standard addressing patterns in tidal flow and obstruction and movement of sediment coincide with the interest of the wetlands protection act. He said the project does comply with the wetland restriction program and that agrees with the BSC review. He addressed the proportion of the water piles. He tried to bring in a substantial study from the Mass Estuary project and wanted to place this project in the context within the Popponesset Bay System. This is no more than another dock going across a water body. They are looking at very fine sand, silt and muck and not looking at heavy wave action. He said any sand on tires will drop off on the gravel before they get to the bridge. Jack Vaccaro wanted to address Mr. Green's comments. He said they looked at the drainage on the island side and proposed a grass swale which he noted on a plan. The Chair thanked everyone for all of the information they provided. The Agent stated this application has gone about in a piece meal approach and it is important for the Commission to get mindful of procedural issues when it comes to the filing of a notice of intent. He also said the other approach is to allow for one side or the other to submit materials to further their assertions throughout the process which takes up a lot of time for everyone associated with this process and encouraged the Commission to be mindful of procedure in this application and future applications. He noted there are two choices: to continue the hearing or render a decision on whether the project meets the performance standards (approve or deny). The Agent said based on the peer review, .he didn't believe it meets all of the performance standards. If the Commission wishes to deny it without prejudice, it would mean the applicant can come back with another notice of intent with one that addresses the performance standards. He reiterated this type of project takes up so much time. The Agent suggested if the Commission continues the matter they make a statement of a deadline of submission and if they feel that they have received all of the information they need to make it known tonight. He commented this application has placed an unnecessary burden on the department which is something that needs to be addressed. Atty Wall stated a third option is to close and read everything and not make a decision because if the Commissioners close the hearing they have 21 days to make a decision. Following a discussion, Motion: Mr. McKay moved to Close and deliberate for another discussion on January 22, 2015 with no further submissions from anyone because the