1988-1990-ZBA APPEALS (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

64 Board of Appeals Meeting: 12/27/89 Recommendations from Conservation Agent for this meeting: Damon- Consultations with Shellfish Warden Somerville indicate that productive shellfish beds lie in the -area where the dock is to be situated. I share Mr. Somerville's opinion that the construction, presence, and intended uses of the dock will undoubtedly alter the area in such a way so as to cause substantial disruption and/or degradation of shellfish habitat. These alterations are likely to include injurious changes in such important aspects vital to the (now) productive area as: sediment (grain size) distribution, alteration of water currents, turbidity, and/or the addition of pollutants. Adjacent areas to the proposed dock, also productive shellfish habitat, are already experiencing the disruptive effects of boat traffic. Permitting another structure (and attendant activities) that add to the disruption of the shellfish habitat in the area would damage the resource even further; it is my recommendation that the application be denied. Pelusi- The Commission has significant qualms about the large "deck" at the bottom of the inland bank. The bank, as it was constituted before trees were taken down by the applicant, provides valuable wildlife •habitat. (An enforcement order by the Conservation Commission mandating a Notice of Intent was the result of the illegal clearing of the bank by the applicant.) In addition, the disruption caused by the installation of such a large structure on the very steep bank is liable (in our opinion) to result in increased potential for degrading the physical stability of the bank, with resultant intrusion of sediments into Mashpee Wakeby Pond. It is our opinion that the structure, as currently planned, is likely to cause unacceptable significant or cumulative effects upon the bank and pond. We recommend the applicant ammend his plans by deleting the "deck" at the bottom of the stairs leading down to the pond, or possibly moving the structure to the flat area beyond (landward) of. the major break in slope (i.e the top of the bank). Porciello- I concur with Shellfish Warden Somerville that the plans should be revised so that the floats be situated parallel to the shore (instead) of perpendicular, and that all motorized craft using the facility be restricted to the outside (seaward) side of the floats. With these changes, the structure would present only negligible disruption to the resource area, namely land under the ocean and the adjacent bank. To allow motorized craft to utilize the facility as shown in the plans would, in my opinion, be likely to cause unacceptable physical degradation to the sediments (land under the ocean) and even (ultimately) to the adjacent bank itself. �. Respectfully submitted, Robert Sherman,