10/21/2010 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

should be part of the commission's approach of leniency to give him ars opportunity to explain. The Agent states that there is no reason for continuance, though, or making a determination of the project as his recommendation would be to deny the application as it should have been removed months ago and now should be removed immediately. There has been no request for a warier of requirement or demonstration of compelling need for.the deck. Based on those two criteria's, a denial should be in order. Nor. Sweet asks who wiil remove the deck as there has been no response from the owner up to this point so why would he respond now. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to dery the Notice of Intent for the construction of a wooden patio. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to impose a $25,000 fine with an agreement that Mr. Fields will have 30 days to come forward before the Commission to explain the situation of the patio. 7:24 Lewis Rubin in S 3-2629 Tide Run) Install vinyl retaining wall and restore coastal bank with native plantings - NOI Resource Area: Coastal Bank Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental Consulting is the representative for t,he.homeowner and explains that this is a unique circumstance where the owners have been experiencing a little damage to the pool apron. The patio edge is starting to erode because the surface run oft=is towards the coastal bank which is very close to the apron. They would like to install some vinyl sheathing retaining wall along the pool edge to shore up that area of the property. The retaining wall edge will encroach upon the coastal bank for a length of about 55 sq.ft. It is greater than the 1 slop so it is a situation where the bank extends up above the 100 year flood plane to the point where the slope becomes less than :1 and is-basically at the edge of the existing plantings at the pool's edge. In addition to the retaining wall, they are also proposing to install.some plantings along the downward slope side of the wall. Mr. Vaccaro feels that by stabilizing the slope, it will help enhance the values of the wetland areas and coastal bank, Agent McManus has been to the site a few times and feels there is no question that the patio area is in jeopardy of further dame a due to the to of the coastal bark. The A ent mentions for g p clarification that 310 CMR 10.3 which is the state statute of coastal banks where coastal bans performance is essential for a sediment source storm damage protection while supplying sediment to coastal beaches and that coastal dunes shall not be armored or revetted in any way. This coastal bank does not meet that performance standard and it is not a sediment source therefore this condition does not apply and a retaining gall can be place on this coastal bark and still be in compliance with DEP's regulations as well as MashpeeIs regulations. Mr. Vaccaro would like to point out'that ( lark BurtisWith Little Harbor will be contracted to do the work and he Inas indicated that he can install the gall by hand without any construction equipment. Mr. Cross asks why not use tie backs and Mr. Vaccaro explains that the height of the wall and the amount of material it is holding back, according-to the opinion of the installer, is not necessary. Also, IIIb. Vaccaro states that because of the pool, they would not be able to tie it back effectively. John Slavinski from Cape & Islands Engineering explains that the problem is not the surface, it is below. He says that they are actually creating a darn which will stop the soil from traversing down the slope, Mr. Gurnee asks about weepholes and Mr. Slavinsl i replies that there are none but the vinyl is installed it individual pieces so water will seep through between each panel. He states that they are only fiIli n up to 10 yards of fill behind the gall. Agent McManus states that the bank is being fortified with the backfill and plantings. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue