It was a long night for the Marion Conservation Commission on September 25, and one filing proved to be complex due to various discrepancies between the engineer’s plan and what is actually allowed under the Wetlands Protection Act.

            Kathleen Welch’s Notice of Intent contains a variety of activities including an after-the-fact plan to restore 845 feet of the property within the 100-foot buffer of a coastal dune that was altered with fill. Welch’s engineer, Dave Newhall, also proposed some invasive species management within and near the dune in addition to a kayak rack, raised planting bed, picket fence, 12’x12’ patio, walkway, and landscaping at 82 West Avenue.

            Commission member Shaun Walsh pointed out that revisions to the plan now propose a smaller area of restoration – 435 feet – nearly half the size stated in the NOI.

            “I’m trying to understand why there’s such a major reduction in the amount of area to be restored,” said Walsh. He further pointed out that “probably 50 percent of the property” appeared to have been altered with fill brought in to create a lawn, which is not marked on the plan.

            “When you file a [Notice of Intent] for a site like this [it is standard] to reflect the area of all the resources that were impacted,” Walsh said. “It wasn’t just dune or beach.

            “That’s something that’s going to have to be addressed in the record… to reflect the fact that this portion of the site that was jurisdictional was altered.”

            Walsh wanted Newhall to estimate the square footage of the altered area and pointed out that, without a confirmation letter from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, the hearing would have to be continued. He then turned his attention to the vegetation management plan for the invasive species that included a proposal to either selectively remove or flush cut existing red cedar trees and an oak tree sapling.

            “I have a real concern about flush cutting or removing of trees from a coastal dune,” said Walsh. The Wetlands Protection Act prohibits the destruction of vegetation that could affect the dune, he said, because the root systems help anchor the dune and keep it from washing away during storms. “It’s very concerning to me that there’s a proposal to remove vegetation from a dune that might destabilize that, so I would not be in favor of that part of the vegetation plan.”

            One option is for the commission to approve some parts of the plan while denying others, something Newhall didn’t object to.

            “In terms of pruning a bush or a tree, that might be something that the commission could permit,” said Walsh, as long as it does not adversely affect the health of tree or destabilize the ground.

            As for the oak sapling, Walsh said, that stays put. It’s just how Mother Nature works, he said. “A seed blew in, a seed took root, and you’ve got a small oak there now – that’s a good thing because, understand that that coastal dune is helping to protect your property and, at some point in the future, there will be a storm that will come up your yard and toward your house and having it protected by a coastal dune is a good thing.”

            Walsh was still concerned about the red cedars that the plan proposes to be removed and replaced with another species.

            “Here’s an issue that I have – and not necessarily with you sir – but, I think, with your client,” said commission member Cynthia Callow. “I would be hesitant to allow any pruning, trimming, on anything because of the history of this particular project… I understand that fill was brought in. The property owner should know when fill is brought in and I think that the Order of Conditions is not checked properly and I think that is a concern with me.

            “Before I would be okay and comfortable with things, we need a letter from Natural Heritage… and we need to make sure that everything is dotted and crossed so that we educate the client so that it doesn’t – so things don’t happen again. I’m not saying that anything was done on purpose,” she continued, “but knowledge is a good thing to have.”

            The hearing was continued until October 8.

            In other matters, the commission had to continue the public hearing for Elizabeth and William Weber Jr., 21 East Avenue, for an NOI to reconstruct a stone riprap boulder seawall starting with toe stones at seaward base and ending with capstones at the top. The commission asked engineer David Davignon to take some time to revise the plan by documenting the correct seawall license number.

            The property has already been issued an Order of Conditions for the removal of a small cottage and construction of a larger house.

            According to Davignon, the concrete seawall is slumped and casting debris on the shoreline. The plan is to pull out the dilapidated concrete and reconstruct the seawall at a consistent slope. The hearing was continued until October 9.

            Also during the meeting, the commission closed the public hearing and issued an Order of Conditions to 22 Cove Street, LLC for a Notice of Intent to subdivide 3.61 acres into three buildable lots off Beach Street and Converse Road. After a series of continuations, engineer David Davignon presented a set of final revised plans featuring some minor changes since the last time Davignon appeared before the ConCom in August. The peer-review engineer issued a letter with comments, and correspondence from the Department of Environmental Protection confirmed that the stormwater design is in compliance with DEP regulations.

            The commission issued a Negative 2 determination for the Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Rosemary Kotkowski to install an underground 320-gallon propane tank to fuel a house at 78 West Avenue. The commission lauded the applicant for applying for approval before moving ahead with the work.

            Ann Ianuzzi, Kristen Keith, and Christine Assad received a Negative 2 determination for their RDA to treat invasive species in tandem with the Town of Marion at Sprague’s Cove at their abutting properties: 9 and 15 Shell Heap Road, and 31 Cove Street. The work will not convene until next year during the appropriate time to treat phragmites.

            The project received approval with an Order of Conditions with some special conditions.

            In other business, the commission signed a permit extension for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the work being done on Route 6.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for October 9 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry

            Summer may be over, but issues related to where boaters may engage in water skiing and tubing activities in Mattapoisett Harbor are still being debated. That was the case on September 26 when the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board met. In attendance was Harbormaster Jamie McIntosh.

            Months ago during the July 25 meeting, the MAB discussed the issue of whether or not an area located in the inner harbor near the Shinning Tides beach, locally designated as an area where water skiing could take place, was actually an area the United States Coast Guard (USCG) claims as anchorage space. During that meeting, then Harbormaster Jill Simmons said that the federal designation of anchorage superseded anything done at the local level. The problem associated with water skiing is that of boats exceeding the 25 mile-per-hour speed limit in that location and creating wakes in the mooring field.

            On September 26, the issue was again debated. Chairman Carlos DeSousa said he thought that putting a speed restriction would help. But McIntosh said he would be hesitant to do that. There ensued a discussion that included the idea of mandating that water skiers and tubers use the outer harbor area instead of being so close to shore. But McIntosh thought otherwise.

            “I wouldn’t want to send the kids out there further from shore,” said McIntosh. He pondered that maybe a speed restriction would help, but said that even a boat motoring at a low rate of speed threw a big wake. “It requires more study.”

            McIntosh said that if he has more staff next summer, staff that would be deployed on the water, they could monitor the harbor better. “We could shut it down,” if boaters were found creating big wake. With a “significant presence” on the water, said McIntosh, things might improve.

            Yet that wouldn’t solve the issue of whether or not the recreational space was actually an anchorage area.

            MAB member Bob Moore said, “We need to understand the interaction between local, state, and federal law… There has to be a proper reading of those altogether.” Moore said he wanted to explore it further and that he wants to find out if there had been any case law that might help clarify the matter.

            A USCG designated anchorage area is a place where boats and ships can safely drop anchor.

            McIntosh said he would look into the issue.

            In other matters, the condition of Long Wharf with respect to its ability to withstand heavy loads such as cranes and oil trucks was discussed. This concern sprang up as the board was talking about boaters placing large containers of fuel on floating docks as they prepared to head out to their moored boats. McIntosh said that practice should be limited to one jerrycan. He said that when large fuel trucks are servicing vessels tied to the wharves, the Fire Department should be alerted in the event a fuel spill occurs.

            The problem is related to fuel vapors in the air, which, if concentrated, can explode with the introduction of an ignition source. McIntosh said that if a can of fuel went into the water or if there were a spill from a fuel truck, the Fire Department would be better equipped to contain the spill.

            The members then dove into the condition of Long Wharf. McIntosh said, “We shouldn’t have trucks or cranes down there.”

DeSousa noted that marina operators sometimes pull the masts of large sailboats from boats tied up at the end of the wharf. McIntosh said it was a “judgment call” on the part of the marina whether to pull masts on the water or once the boat was out.

            The board concurred that the cranes were too heavy and might be in harm’s way at the end of the historic wharf. DeSousa suggested that marina owners be invited to the next meeting of the MAB to discuss the matter.

            “We have a duty to tell them they are using it at their own risk,” said Moore.

            “This will be on my radar now,” said McIntosh.

            Also during the meeting, McIntosh suggested that the staff needs more intensive training handling the pump-out boat. He said that such training should take place in the spring before the boating season gets underway. According to him, the department is averaging 30 pump-out requests were per week, and that an online form and other pump-out information is available on the Town’s website www.mattapoisett.net.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board is scheduled for October 31 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board

By Marilou Newell