The Mattapoisett Conservation Commission met on Wednesday, October 14, to hear from citizens and vote on requests to modify their properties. The Commission determines whether sites near a wetland are subject to regulation under Massachusetts’ Wetlands Protection Act, which the Conservation Commission enforces.
The night concluded a nearly six-month review of a proposal to clear vegetation and establish long-term management for an access route to the waterfront near Bryne Avenue and Shell Beach Road. The applicant is easement holder Stephen Vaitses.
Under the commission’s decision, the project would not use machinery, historical stone walls must remain intact, and picnic tables must be removed seasonally. For major storms, the commission would impose a 10-foot height restriction on trimming and, if applicable, require the applicant to find a location of equal or lesser impact for the mats on the dune.
A recent expansion to the project included laying wheelchair accessible mats over a dune, which drew controversy. While the applicant argued the mat would give residents with disabilities access to the beach, neighbors said it would damage the already eroded dunes and potentially cause flooding during storms.
In another case, the commission unanimously issued a negative determination, meaning the project requires no oversight for the Wetlands Protection Act, for a proposal for 6 Water Street, the location of Demakis Family Real Estate at the town wharf.
The request — filed by applicant Tyler Hathaway — was to replace the staircase on the west side of the building, currently brick, with granite/bluestone. The existing staircase is 5-foot-by-5-foot, and the applicant proposes expanding it to 10-foot-by-5-foot. The applicant also wants to remove the asphalt and replace it with garden beds.
In another matter, the resident of 11 Seamarsh Way agreed to remove a metal pole with a no trespassing sign that he had installed where he believed the high-water mark at his waterfront property to be.
Members of the commission contested that the pole was placed below the high-water mark, and the land “was subject to storm floodage.” The property owner was given the opportunity to take down the sign or submit an application to the commission for review, but he chose to take it down.
Mattapoisett Conservation Commission
By Zakary Sarkarati