4/4/1991 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission April 41 1991 Page 14. 9:00 14DRTON H. WM for the installation of a preconstructed aluminum ramp (30' X 32" to a bottom-anchored float on a seasonal basis in Jehu Pond at 43 Tide Run Way. Susana Lannik stood clown. Norman Hayes presenting. The Notice of Intent details the history of the project. If Mr, west were t appeal this Board's decision it would trigger MEPA thresholds. The Notice of Intent addresses the Board's questions. If a superseding Order is required, it would trigger an F and EIR which would cost an additional $25,000 to address the performance standards for an area of shade 8' long and 2#' wide, In the 1988 Guidelines for Piers and Docks, C M would like to see "T" floats as an alternative to a dock (Suggested Fier design standards). Little Raver brings it in through the charnel of Jehu Pond in spring. The ramp will be on rollers with a pin to allow for tidal fluctuation. To position the float some activity in the water would be necessary. Ms Behrman questioned the depth of the water around the float as it looks like it is sitting on the bottom. Mr. Dyes stated at the peak of high tide there was a differential in elevation from this plan of only 11 inches. Ms Behrman stated s , at low tide, this float is sitting on the bottom. Mr. Hayes stated no, at low tide we went back and there is no way that float sits on the bottom, He went on a 12.5 tide, the highest of the year. Ms Behrman stated the commission has received verbal statements of one set of water depths and have another set of water depths on a stamped plan which is the document- ation the commission bases their judgement on. Ir. Hayes stated they also have to base their positioning on dean Low Nater on the geodetic data they have. soundings have been provided previously and will be pro- video again. The float is not being discussed, it is a harbormaster permitted float; the only item being discussed is the connecting aluminum ramp., Nis Bhrman stated we are talking about something that makes it into a dock. The previous agent received letters from CZM and others and the consensus was that when tied in with a gangplank that was a dock and came under the Wetlands Protection Act as a structure. Mr. Sherman stated it is clearly correct that Chapter 91 does not regard this as a dock but it is worthy of a filing under 131.40. The commission always considers the impact of the ]coat and prop wash which should be done now. It is a point of � semantics as to what it is called. He asked if 'n an ACEC a dock requires an ETF and it does. He asked if NEPA passed on this needing an Mr. Hayes advised they have documentation from waterways that they do not meed Perm-it The only way MEPA thresholds would be triggered would be if a state permit is re *red. At thi