Two continued public hearings before the Marion Conservation Commission on January 23 hinged on the vexing question of the distance the Department of Marine Fisheries recommended between the bottom of a float structure and the substrate of Wings Cove.
David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates presented the two similar Notices of Intent, located at 51 and 95 Holly Road, and the respective discussions centered on the question of the location of the float stops on proposed piles.
At the previous hearing, Davignon laid out the proposals in detail, but continued the hearings with the hope that there would be further response from the department or the Army Corps of Engineers on his comments regarding the float stops. Those hopes were dashed when Davignon received no response in the last two weeks.
The first application, 95 Holly Road owned by E. Byron Hensley, is a proposal to build a residential pier facility in Wings Cove consisting of a 4’ wide by 265’ long elevated boardwalk, a 4-foot by 101-foot long pier with a 3’ by 20’ gangway, and 10’ by 20’ float.
Vice Chairman Shaun Walsh said he had looked at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Guide to Small Docks and Piers, seeking clarification and justification for the recommendation by the Department of Marine Fisheries for a 30-inch separation between the bottom of the float and the substrate of the cove. He noted that the recommendation was for locations within significant shellfish habitat and suggested it may have to do with shading impacts that may change the temperature of the water.
Davignon expressed frustration, saying in his experience the DEP submits the same comment regardless of the project’s location. The low tide in the proposed location is 24 inches, leaving the float suspended 6 inches in the air, which Davignon noted would make it difficult to embark and disembark from small boats and kayaks.
The commission pushed back on the inconvenience with Walsh asking what percentage of the time the owner would actually be performing that task at low tide. Davignon also supported his argument that the requirement was arbitrary by noting that the Waterways licensing division recommends a 24-inch separation, but Walsh suggested this requirement had more to do with navigation.
“From where I sit … I’m personally inclined to write a condition on what we have been asked to recommend,” Walsh said. “Absent a more compelling [argument], I’d be inclined to maintain the 30-inch separation.”
Davignon reported that the applicant intends to move the shellfish from the location of the float, and despite inquiries from the commission about reducing the size of the float, the Hensley Order of Conditions was issued for the float as proposed with a 30-inch separation from the bottom of the float and the substrate, and ¾-inch spacing between decking boards.
The additional condition on 95 Holly Road dealt with the unpermitted cutting of the vegetation in the marsh, and specifically put the applicant on notice that the commission will be inspecting the site in the spring to determine that all cutting had been discontinued.
As for the proposal at 51 Holly Road owned by Paul and Christine Driscoll, which describes a pier facility consisting of a 3’ wide by 145’ long elevated boardwalk, a 4’ by 61’ long pier with a 3’ by 20’ long gangway and a 10’ by 20′ float, Davignon outlined a similar scenario. He agreed readily to the 30-inch separation between the float and the substrate already established by the previous discussion. In addition, Driscoll, who had also done some cutting in the marsh but halted when he apparently learned it was illegal, received permission in the Order of Conditions to hire a professional licensed herbicide contractor to eradicate phragmites at the site.
Also during the meeting, Davignon represented the Michael R. Deland Realty Trust of 1978 on the Notice of Intent application located at 498c Point Road to upgrade a bottom chain anchoring system to float piles. Davignon described this as a simple project, an idea with which the Army Corps of Engineers apparently agreed, determining that it would rely on self-verification by the engineer. The pier was built prior to 1900 and has been maintained since then. Due to the pier’s age, the Army Corps considers the proposal a minor project modification, and the piles to be preferable to the bottom anchors. The separation of the float from the substrate will be 30 inches landward and 44 inches seaward. The Order of Conditions was issued without any special conditions.
A continued public hearing regarding the Notice of Intent application of Carol and Stephen Milligan, also represented by Davignon, proposes to repair and improve an existing pier at 312 Delano Road. The pier is supported with large boulders and deteriorating steel piles. The steel will be replaced with four wooden piles and the decking of the pier will also be replaced.
Commission member Kristen Saint Don-Campbell inquired about the provision for public access. Walsh pointed out that there was nothing on the plan showing accommodation for the public to laterally access the intertidal zone, and as Davignon explained, since the pier is already licensed and the state considers it a minor project modification, there is no concern about public access. Davignon went on to say the pier was built in 1972 and was licensed in 1997, which Walsh surmised might be considered an “amnesty license”. The Order of Conditions was issued with the condition that deck boards are spaced ¾ inch apart.
In other business, the commission issued a Negative determination on the Request for Determination of Applicability for Kitty Degroot to perform tree trimming and removal at 8 Aucoot Ave.
The commission continued a hearing for the Notice of Intent application of Joseph and Caroline Sheehan for the installation of a 12′ by 32′ in ground pool with a 4′ patio on three sides, and a 12′ by 12′ patio on the northerly side, located at 17 Nokomis Road. Davignon, representing the applicants, noted that there is a concrete retaining wall three feet tall running north to south along the bordering vegetated wetlands. The pool will be located in a relatively flat area, meets all the setbacks, and will have an automatic cover so will not require a fence. Walsh questioned that assertion, suggesting that the Board of Health requires a fence around pools. While Davignon agreed that technically there is a requirement for a 6′ high fence, he stated that other pools have recently been permitted with lower or no fence. Walsh suggested that, while the question was not in the purview of the commission, it would impact the plan they reviewed. The hearing was continued so further clarification could be ascertained from the Board of Health.
The commission finalized letters to the owners of 4 and 8 Island Court, Donald Lipsitt and Cyrus Lipsitt respectively, in response to a resident question with respect to construction of an unpermitted wooden walkway and mowing in the saltmarsh adjacent to the properties.
The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for February 13 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.
Marion Conservation Commission
By Sarah French Storer