Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Barrer Fogel was present representing the Tidewatch Association. He commented the <br /> timber wall is being installed on the,coastal beach and not on the coastal bank. He said <br /> this project is being identified as a coastal bank -stabilization project. He said DEP <br /> pointed out in the state act 10 CMR 10.00) that the project on a coastal beach should <br /> not have an adverse effect on the form of the coastal beach. He pointed out that <br /> Tidewatch has an easement on the beach and this is going to change the shape. He noted <br /> DEP's regulations do not allow structural engineering projects on a coastal bank unless it <br /> is for protecting houses built before 1378; he said that these houses don't meet that <br /> standard. The timber wall has not been permitted -by any prof et that DEP has <br /> commented on in'the hast. This would violate the regulations of changing wave energy. <br /> On other properties, The woods Hole group has proposed a snow fence which is a much <br /> less structural engineered design. The Tidewatch group asked for an alternative to the <br /> timber wall and requested that the engineers come back with a project that wouldn't <br /> change the form of the coastal beach. <br /> Agent McManus deferred to the engineers. He stated he doesn't have the'expertise to tell <br /> the Commissioners. what effect this project would have on the beach. This is an <br /> experimental project and if the Commissioners were to approve it, DEP could hand down <br /> comments as often as they wanted to. Ms. Marden said DEP reviews every project and <br /> they approve it. They reviewed the New Seabury project and approved it and they also <br /> reviewed the South Cape project. Agent McManus said that the DEP has put the decision <br /> in the Commissioners hands and noted he hasn't received any additional comments from <br /> DEP. <br /> Mr. Fogel recommended to the Commissioners installation of something with a lover <br /> profile. He also noted the plans on file were not stamped. He noted the comments he is <br /> making applies to all three projects. �re said Tidewatch does not object to the idea of <br /> bank stabilization project. Tidewatch would life it the stabilization to be installed on the <br /> bank and want it to conform to the standard DEP soft design which would eliminate this <br /> proposed solid timber structure.- <br /> Don <br /> tructure:Don Cooper stated if the Commissioners want the engineering ply stamped, they will <br /> submit one. He said this is a bark stabilization project and pointed out if the reason the . <br /> Tidewatch is suggesting an alternative design is because this project doesn't meet, the <br /> standards of a coastal beach, that is incorrect because the performance standards for <br /> barrier beaches is the same as coastal beaches. 1f the South Cape Beach project meets the <br /> standards,, this-project will meet the standards. Mr. Cooper noted new techniques always <br /> run ahead of the regulations which haven't been revised since 1978. He urged the <br /> Commissioners to permit the project. <br /> Ms. Marden questioned whether a drift fence would work in this situation. This is a high <br /> energy wave environment; not where a drift fence would be installed. Drift fences are <br /> put in front of clunes. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked ed that the comments be confined to the <br /> applications before.the Commission. <br /> 4 <br />