1/27/2011 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

7:09 New Seabury Tidewatch SE 43-2644 (94 Shore Drive) Beach Nourishment– N-01 Resource Area: LSCSF, Coastal Bank Material submitted., Plan Showing Proposed Beach Nourishment 12120110 Coastal Engineering Co.. Inc. Don Monroe is the representative and explains that there is an existing revetment in front of Tidewatch and New Seabury Properties. It was reconstructed in 1993 and nourishment permitted and placed. Mr. Monroe explains that they are re-visiting it to do some more nourishment as some of the toe stones are becoming exposed as a result of tidal action. They would like to preserve the expense they went through with the reconstruction to the lower portion and were advised to pursue re-permitting to be able to do nourishment and continually re-visit on a regular basis. Mr. Monroe does not know why previous protocol was not followed. The new management is proactive and would like to pursue this on a regular basis and also is requesting this project to coincide with the project next door. Mr. Monroe states that they were allowed access from next door which he can provide a copy of the letter sent via email. They will need another permit from DEP / Dave Hill because they are going below MHW. Agent McManus asks how the machinery will get along the area and Mr. Monroe answers that they will build a ramp with sand by extending outwards an existing walkway. Chairman Fitzsimmons questions the interaction with the other project and what will happen with it. Mr. Monroe states that this property is revetted and they need to add nourishment and help stabilization. The Chairman asks if it will have to be repeated each year and Mr. Monroe says not every year and actually the last time it was done was 2000-2002. It's only been recent that the toe stones have become exposed. Agent McManus asks if the previous Order of Conditions had yearly nourishment. Mr. Monroe says that it calls for monitoring and if needed, nourishment. The Agent believes that it was based on a requirement of nourishment rather than a monitoring. Mr. Monroe requests monitoring so that they do not add more than what is necessary. The Agent questions that and asks why DEP would recommend a certain amount of cubic yard of sand annually if they thought it was going to be too much for the system. Mr. Monroe thinks that was based on a discussion with the applicant back when it wasn't a DEP regulation and he also explains that these systems have a trigger point. Their trigger point is the exposure of the toe stone and then they will recommend nourishment. The Agent would like to clarify the old Conditions and Mr. Monroe has a copy [hands it to the Agent) who then proceeds to read condition #18 and also #19 from SE43-1552 which states that nourishment will be placed on the beach annually in the autumn in the amount of a minimum of 1500 cu.yds.; #19 reads that this nourishment program shall be stopped at any time with an on-site inspection from the permitting agency. Mr. Monroe believes that was conditioned like that because they did not do nourishment previously and the wall had to be rebuilt. He continues with saying that their experience over the last 10 years of nourishing in other towns show that it is more appropriate to do some sort of monitoring so that you are not adding too much sand to a system. Mr. Gurnee agrees that it makes sense to monitor a system rather than "overloading" a system. The Chairman states that the Agent should have been notified of the monitoring and their findings. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to Close and Issue 7:12 John & Nancy Cleary SE 43-2645 (19 Tide Run) Construct additions, deck reconfiguration and removal of one oak tree– NOI Resource Area: Buffer Zone to Coastal Bank, BVW, Salt Marsh, LSCSF Material submitted., Proposed Additions & Alterations 12122110 BSS Design/Buffer Restoration Plan 1104111 Vaccaro Environmental Jack Vaccaro from Vaccaro Environmental is representing the applicant and explains that they are requesting some simple home additions, deck reconfiguration and the removal of one large mature oak tree in the back of the house. They would like to reconfigure the back deck which currently is a two-level deck that runs between the two wings of the house into one level and occupy a section of the same deck with a home addition that extends slightly beyond the deck. They are also requesting a squaring off of the structure in the front of the house. Mr. Vaccaro explains that it is a small encroachment of a new structure beyond the foot print of the existing deck and it is an area of 3