6/6/1991 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission June 6, 1991 Page 4. 1RTUN W M - ORDER OF CONONS* Norman Hayes and Cass Costa were present for the discussion. RECCMM14A IO OF ISH WARDEN: "Permi.t me to set the tone of this recomnendation from the beginning; 1 STRONGLY object to the situation being proposed to the Conservation Commission in this filing. Regardless of the manner in which the parts of this .structure have been presented in the regulatory process, this structure is, by design and by use, a dock. It is clearly intended to be used for the berthing of at least one vessel. The fact that this construction is occurring in an ACEC makes the apparent exploitation of a reg- ulatory glitch particularly objectionable to me. Having stated this, I will present ray observations and recomendations. The shallow depths in the area where the float is to be located aro not sufficient to keep the float from floating on all tides. I do not believe there would be more than three o four inches of water under the float n an average low tide. I DEFINITELY do not feel that there is sufficient depth to float an average vessel without some part ofthe Dull or propulsion unit touching the bottom. Obviously the use of a vessel in accessing or leaving this float will be unable to occur without scouring the bottom, not only at the float, but corning on to the float as well. I agree with the consultant's assertions that this is a viable shellfish habitat. 1 also believe that the sediment type found in the inter-tidal and immediate sub-tidal area is there as a result of the erasion of the coastal bank. This particular areas sediments are not typical of the majority of Jehu Pond. 1 acknowledge that this is pure.y speculation on my part. l make the statement because l feel that this sediment type could very well support a shellfish population and could be classified as potential habitat. Although 1 curl not observe any shellfish in the area in front of the proponent's property, 1 have found seed quahogs and clams in slimi lar sediments a few yards clown the shore. Unfortunately, l am unable to attend the ConComm hearing due to my regUired attendance at a Shellfish Commission meeting. I would be very-agreeable to attending a hearing at a later date to discuss this matter. I believe that there remains a whop lot more to be said about this project. l believe that the ACEC polio and guidelines are applicable in this easy. l do not feel that this project will be able to meet the performance standards of the WA as it concerns the ACEC. Again, I STRONGLY urge the ConComm to deny this project under the Mashpee Bylaw, as well as the Chapter 131 Section 40 law. I would be glad to sit down with the Corm- fission or the Agent to discuss this further," HOER: Norman, did you ever get a resolution as to the ramp being part of the float under the new 1 HAVES: Absolutely, there is absolutely no question the definition is as the regul- ation states. Remember what we are talking about here tonight people, we're talking about an extension, we're not talking about a float, we're not talking about a coastal walkover structure, we're talking about a ramp that is part of a float and is not a structure and is clearly in the definition under the 91 regulations that allow petting .of,this. . This shellfish report doesn' t coincide with the -one l submitted to you about a year and one-half ago that was reviewed time in and time out, over and over again, and this is new information compared to what was given originally. Again, all Mr. West is trying to do is to withdraw his appeal that sits in the state, that is in effect, as a result of a meeting we had, Nonny-was