10/10/2019 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

good. Given what the impact would be from this platform,which is really negligible in his opinion, to what you're getting in exchange. Mr. McKay asked if it was permeable. Mr.Borselli answered that it is standard decking, like any residential deck. Agent said that we're not really protecting anything underneath it except lawn. Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to close and issue, Mr. Smith seconded Vote: 5-0 unanimous 6:03 Thomas D. Cleary, 4 Wheelhouse Lane. Permitting of existing, state-licensed dock. RDA Jack Cleary was present. He is buying the property from Thomas Cleary. He is asking for confirmation to have the Town approve whatever the State has approved. The Agent asked how they got a State License without a local permit, particularly a coastal dock. After some research and looking into the Registry of Deeds, they found that this property was actually lot 45 at the time, when the dock was put in back in 1987/88, so it's a completely different lot address than now,which is why they couldn't find anything. They did find a DEP permit number, 43-357, issued back around 1987/88. So it's a very old number. It subsequently got a Chapter 91 License. The thing we are unclear of because we couldn't find in our records, is any evidence of recording of that permit. It should have been recorded in the Registry of Deeds in order for it to be a legally binding permit. The Registry of Deeds needs to be contacted to see what they have on file. The reason is it would be the cart before the horse to issue a state license if the local license was never recorded. This really needs to be vetted and the homeowner needs to contact the Barnstable Registry of Deeds. The other issue is this dock has no public access up and over at knee-high water, which is a requirement from the state Chapter 91. The agent recommends a continuance. Motion: Mr. Smith moved to continue to 10/24/19 at 6pm, Mr. Sweet seconded. Vote: 5-0 unanimous 6:06 Gary S. & Marlene S. Perkins, 8 Bowsprit Point. Proposed removal and reconstruction of NOI pier/ramp/float/piles structure with addition of kayak racks and hardscaping and landscaping modifications. Continued from 9126: relocate retaining wall and associated grading.and address lawn issues. Matt Costa from Cape and Islands Engineering represented the applicant. He presented plans to rebuild the existing pier, lawn, walkway, and landscape areas, and a retaining wall. Mr. Sweet asked what the height of the proposed wall is. Mr. Costa answered 26inches high. Mr. Sweet said it's a good proposal. Mr. McKay asked why the retaining wall? The Agent answered storm damage protection. He recommended to push back the wall to meet performance standards based on the long term marsh health and seal level rise. He sees it as a much greater improvement over the existing conditions. There's no coastal bank or erosion there. Mr. Costa said the wall is not high at all, it's a protective measure to stop flooding. No loss of flood storage capacity. The agent said it's probably an increase in capacity. Motion: Mr. Sweet moved to close and issue, Mr. Smith seconded. Vote: 5-0 unanimous 6:09 New Seabury Maushop Condominium Owners,358 Shore Drive West. Proposed extension NOI of beach nourishment from revetment to below mean high water and redesign of permitted beach profile. Continued from 9126: Department of Environmental Protection review required. Charlie Agro from Coastal Engineering represented the applicant. Coastal Engineering has been involved with the Maushop Condominiums for the past two years with their annual nourishment project. As stated in their original OOC they're required to replace approximately 2,650 cubic yards of sediment annually, based on a survey we do every year around February. We survey the beach to determine the volume to restore-the beach to what it was in 1995. The last few years we've noticed the beach is losing elevation and as the beach continues to erode