5/6/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

May 1999 Rage 9. the edge of the coastal bark with this proposed pool. It was stated that is what they are proposing. Mr. Rosenberg asked how much filing will be done? Ms Ball stated they will reed to fill the area within the proposed retaining wall, 5 or 6 feet in elevation. Mr. Sherman stated he has met at this site with different people and with Mr. Lynch and Array. He informed them at that time based on past precedents and regulatory standards under the Bylaw and state wetlands Protection Act what he thought would fly and this in no way resembles anything close to what he thinks will fly. He cannot endorse this project and strongly opposes it. Under a previous owner, ENSR did some work on this property, he asked if they were rising that work? They are not. Mr. Sherman stated the landward edge of the dune comes to the toe of the bank and asked if they would concede that? Ms Ball stated yes. He asked if the toe of bank is located on this plan? Ms Ball stated that is the line she just drew on. she highlighted it on the plan. That is the dune edge and toe f coastal bank. Mr. Sherman did not think this passes muster on many levels. First of all, in terms of wildlife habitat he thought that re the coastal dune, the wildlife habitat reference is generally bird nesting and this contains many other wildlife signs that it is utilized heavily by wildlife other than birds. Birds probably do use it for nesting, that is acknowledged in the Nol, and that would be contravention of the coastal dune performancestandards, "Any alteration o , or structure on, a coastal dune, or within loo' of a coastal dune, shall not have any adverse effect on the coastal dune by interfering with mapped or otherwise identified bird nesting habitat'. It certainly would disturb and interfere with bird nestings so does not pass muster under the coastal dune standards. Also, in coastal dune standards, it would disturb the vegetative coverage, destabilize the dune. It would cause a modification to the dune form that would increase the potential for storm or flood damage in that if we ever had the "big one", storms hitting the structure, there would be refraction reflection ofwaves which would cause damage that contravenes coastal bank and coastal dune performance standards. so, from a wildlife habitat standpoint and storm damage standpoint it doesn't meet performance standards under the state Wetlands Act for coastal clunes or coastal bank, that is 310 CMR, 10.28 3 b) (c), e and f and 10.32 . In a storm situation, it would certainly have an adverse effect due to wave reflection.