After a nearly two hour-long hearing, the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission denied Daniel DaRosa’s application to construct a pier at 3 Goodspeed Island, following DaRosa’s insistence that the commission take a vote that evening.
Early in this continued hearing, the board heard from Engineer David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates, Inc. who spoke to the questions the commission had asked during the previous hearing. Those questions centered around whether or not the proposed pier would be erected over soils capable of supporting eelgrass beds, the type of storms the structure was designed to withstand, shellfish bed impact, and winter storage of gangway and floats associated with the pier. Another concern was Town access to the beach for maintenance purposes where the pier’s accessories would be placed during the winter months.
Citing reports from several engineers hired by DaRosa, Davignon said that eelgrass beds were not presently in the area selected for the pier, nor had they been there for some years. He said shellfish could be relocated, and noted a letter from Shellfish Warden Kathy Massey who affirmed the feasibility of relocating shellfish stocks from the construction area.
One important unanswered question pertained to the structural integrity of the pier in various types of storms. The plan as proposed did not give conclusive information, and Davignon wondered what type of storm surge the commission had in mind.
Commission members scrutinized the answers, with several members feeling that two of the engineers hired by DaRosa contradicted each other on the subject of eelgrass. They also questioned Davignon’s responses that indicated, even if a storm damaged the proposed pier, debris would not reach the endangered sewer pipeline running through the Eel Pond location.
Chairman Peter Newton said debris reaching Eel Pond would later be sucked back into the harbor, potentially hitting the sewer pipe that moves 300,000 gallons of raw sewage per day from Mattapoisett to Fairhaven. Davignon called this a “fantasy scenario.”
Commission member Marylou Kelliher asked if the pier could be removed during the winter months. Given the size and construction method proposed, that was not feasible according to Davignon.
ConCom member Bob Rogers asked about the height of the pilings and type of lighting that would be used to illuminate the pier. He received his answer much later in the proceedings – four feet high and low voltage LED on a timer.
In defense of the pier, ConCom member Mike King said the area of the project was not used heavily for recreation, and the pier posed little negative impact on the community He added that shellfishing in the area was already compromised by all the other boats in the harbor, and that by approving and conditioning the construction, local control could be maintained.
“…The applicant has submitted a project that can be permitted,” said King. “If it gets approval at the state level, we lose all control.”
Newton invited the public for comment, cautioning them to stay within the scope of the Wetlands Protection Act. Newton noted for the record a 16-page letter sent to the commission signed by 142 residents opposing the project.
“This is a very big pier,” said resident Michael Huguenin. He said the signatories of the opposition letter were concerned about shellfish, eelgrass, and the sewer pipeline.
Regarding the potential for damage during a storm surge, Huguenin pointed to the fact that the wave attenuator, a structure to deter waves, planned at the end of the pier weighed five tons. He implored the commission to request independent peer review, saying the applicant’s engineering reports insufficiently addressed the project’s impacts on the area.
Ray Andrews, a former selectman and presently an assessor, said the pier’s location was critical to recreation in the harbor, and that it would be the only new pier allowed over an active shellfish bed.
“This is not a good place for a dock of this size in Mattapoisett,” said Andrews, who also pointed out storm damage impacts. He then commented that the additional taxes the DaRosas would pay for the privilege of having a pier of this size was about $2,300 annually, calling it “not a fair trade-off.”
Newton stated, “No one can agree on an appropriate fix for the sewer problem.”
“They should have had full knowledge of the sewer problem,” said Huguenin, referring to when the DaRosas purchased their property.
Gerald Johnson came forward to say the commission “deserved peer review” due to a lack of information. He said that the project was “excessive in scope” and asked the commission to keep the public in mind by conditioning the project.
“This harbor is the jewel of the town,” said Johnson in closing.
Several other residents spoke in opposition or questioned various aspects of the project until all had their opportunity to speak.
Moving forward, Kelliher said that she was not ready to vote on the project, instead asking for an independent peer review and a continuation of the hearing. Newton said it was “a reasonable request.”
“It’s not a good spot for a pier and a disproportionate use by one resident,” stated Rogers. “We are protecting the resource area for all the people … I’d be a lot happier if it could be shorter.” He continued, “I’d like to see the commission step up and if we are going to make a mistake, make it in favor of the resource area.”
Newton said when he took the job of being on the commission he did so to implement the Wetlands Protection Act and has striven to keep personal opinions out of the process and to balance public and private needs. Newton asked DaRosa if he was willing to fund a 53G peer review, resulting in DaRosa asking for a recess to confer with his attorney, John Gushue.
When they returned, Gushue spoke on behalf of DaRosa rejecting the request to fund the peer review. He said the commission had all the information they needed to take a vote at this hearing, and then compared the pier project to the bike path project, saying it was “hypocrisy” on the part of the Town and its people. Newton asked him to confine his comments to the hearing issues.
“The applicant took it out of our hands to work with him on this project,” stated Newton. With that said, the motion was to deny the application with three members voting positive to deny and two members voting negative to deny.
Storm damage issues and habitat depletion were cited for the record. DaRosa now has ten days to appeal this decision to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Newton asked the commission members to think about electing a new chairman as he will be unavailable to attend meetings during the month of November and did not want the work of the commission hindered.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is November 4 at 6:30 pm in the Town Hall conference room.
By Marilou Newell
