My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/31/2013 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
>
1/31/2013 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2018 5:03:02 PM
Creation date
11/21/2018 2:39:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/31/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i <br /> and engineered plan. This enforcement order will also include the installation of rubber spaces to <br /> ensure a minimum of 1 T spacing. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the issuances o f both enforcement <br /> orders as stated by the agent <br /> B. Tidewatch— Beach Nourishment <br /> hment <br /> Agent McManus states that Mr. Berman's report suggests that it does not do any good to attempt to <br /> figure out what the parties involved were thinking in the 1993 Order of Conditions and how they had <br /> core up with the 1500 cubic yards per year. The agent says that he believes there was some kind of <br /> professional input to arrive at that amount but the recommendations from Mr. Berman are all in the <br /> report. The agent states that the Order of Conditions [file #43-1166] contains no profiling information# <br /> notification dates and no staking of any kind for the record. Mr. Fogel had submitted slips from E- <br /> o e It showing delivery of sand to New Seabury; 28 yards per load. Agent McManus states that <br /> although that is proof of delivery, the Order of Conditions has specific orders of beach profiling, <br /> seven-day prior notification, staking in the field as well as sand grain analysis and none of this <br /> documentation has been submitted since 1993. <br /> Mr. Fogel states that he would like summarize ghat he knows; the Order 43-1166 that was issued in <br /> 1993 did not have a beach nourishment requirement but it was amended in 1995 where the 1500 <br /> cubic yards was added. Mr. Fogel says that at that time, New Seabury owned the condominiums. In <br /> 1997, the order of Conditions was issued for 43-1552 for revetment work which carried forward the <br /> 1500 cubic yards but the prior Conservation Agent issued documentation that stated to hold off the <br /> nourishment until a regional nourishment plan was issued. The records from BSC Group who was <br /> working with New Seabury at the time included a summary of the beach nourishment that had been <br /> done during that period which summarizes approximately 1700 cubic yards was placed during the <br /> course of 1998, 1999 &2000. Mr. Fogel says in 2000, a partial Certificate of Compliance was <br /> submitted because Borne of the condo units were being sold and then a complete Certificate of <br /> Compliance for 43-1552 was issued in 2001 with perpetual conditions that dict not include the beach <br /> nourishment. He states that for over 10 years, 2001 to 2911, when the current Order of Conditions <br /> 3-2844 was issued that thea was no beach nourishment obligation during that time but even if there <br /> had been, they had given Drew records from E-Z DOZE IT frorn some revetment repair around 2004- <br /> 2008. Mr. Fogel states that E-Z Doze It brought in about 4200 cubic yards at that time so there is a <br /> history of about 8000 cubic yards brought in between 1993 and 2005. Mr. Fogel states that Mr. <br /> Be rm an's report co.n cu rs.with the analysis that Les Smith, Coa taI Geologist from Epsilon Associates <br /> and Don Monroe from Coastal Engineering, did where they determined that coastal bank retreat <br /> translated into a mitigation requirement would have been the equivalent of 360 cubic yards annually. <br /> Mr. Fogel states that this is consistent with the other Order of Conditions that the Conservation Board <br /> issued to other properties further east. Mr. Fogel states that there have been Certificate of <br /> Compliances issued for all but one of the properties east of Tidewatch that eliminated beach <br /> nourishment requirement as a perpetual requirement which may be Contributing to the shortage of <br /> material for the whole system. Mr. Fogel says that the current order of Conditions that has the 1500 <br /> cubic yards is an open order and based on the information that they provided and the information <br /> that Mr. Berman concurs with; it is their suggestion that they would propose to file a request for a <br /> Certificate of Compliance for the project that would put the 380 cubic yards annually in as a perpetual <br /> requirement for Tidewatch as well as the annual profiles and related provisions. Mr. Fogel notes that <br /> the requirement should be for a minimum of 380 cubic yards based on profiling. Mr. Fogel states that <br /> there is a condition in the order to coordinate with their neighbors on beach nourishment which they <br /> are prepared to do;they have tried to negotiate access with New Seabury which is a pending item <br /> and most likely waiting for resolution of other items. Mr. Fogel says that they are prepared now to <br /> add 360 cubic yards to New Seabury to contribute to stabilization of the core envelopes and add sand <br /> on the beach where Tidewatch owners have an easement. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.