The Mattapoisett Conservation Commission held their first meeting of the month in front of a packed Town Hall conference room on Monday, September 10.
The first hearing of the evening was in regard to a Notice of Intent filed by Kenneth Pacheco, for property owned by Brandt Island Road Realty Trust. Pacheco is proposing the construction of a single-family home at Brandt Point Village.
Al Loomis of McKenzie Engineering Group represented Pacheco during the meeting.
“This project has been before Natural Heritage and a permit has been issued for it,” Loomis said. “It’s what you have seen in the development in the entire set of plans. We showed grading for the entire site so we could show how it would drain. It’s a single-family dwelling with a driveway off the main road.”
He said that the septic system is still under construction but is being installed in phases, with permission of the Department of Environmental Protection.
Chairman Peter Newton was concerned that if the location of the house changes, the grading would have to change. Loomis said they have no intention of changing the shape or location of the home and they would welcome that directive written into an order of conditions.
The Conservation Commission voted in favor of the project.
Next, the Commission heard from Dave Davignon of Schneider and Associates on behalf of William and Sophia Macropoulos of 12 Howard Beach. They filed a Notice of Intent in conjunction with a proposal to repair large sections of a concrete seawall by installing a one-foot-thick steel reinforced cap over the top and sides of the wall.
“We began the project back in the winter time. We came before the Commission and engaged a discussion about how we wanted to go about the repair,” Davignon said. “We’re intending to pour a 12-inch concrete pad over top and extending the base deep enough that, should a storm take out the sand, they’ll be well-protected.”
Davignon added that the repairs could not begin until the existing structure is licensed by Chapter 91 Waterways. Macropoulos would also like to construct a small shed for utility storage.
The Commission felt that the extension of the base of the wall would constitute as a new project.
“Mr. Macropoulos wants to point out that the concrete did originally extend to where we’re going,” Davignon said.
“It would be appropriate to call this a reconstruction if it went out to the existing piling,” said Chairman Peter Newton, but was skeptical that they could prove that it originally extended further. The project did not have a DEP file number as of the time of the meeting, so the hearing was continued until the September 24 meeting.
“We have a couple weeks, so we can figure out exactly where this thing ended,” said Newton.
Then the Commission held a continued hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by Mattapoisett Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners. The Commissioners are proposing construction of a low-pressure sanitary sewer on Cove Street.
The project would serve 28 homes in the Point Connet area of town.
“The grinder pumps would be located in the homes and not in the ground,” said Patrick Sheridan of engineers Tighe & Bond, because the project is located near a barrier beach. The law does not allow for the building of solid structures at a barrier beach.
He noted a few minor corrections made to the plans since their last meeting, including property line adjustments.
Commission member Ken Dawicki said that he would prefer turning the decision over to the DEP because he felt that the plan was calling for the building for solid structures at a barrier beach.
“I don’t feel comfortable making that decision. I don’t feel that this Commission can make a determination on this project,” Dawicki said.
Commission member Mike King echoed Dawicki’s position of allowing the DEP to render a decision on the future of the project.
Sheridan said that the language in the regulations does not specify a definition of a “structure that would inhibit the movement of a barrier beach.” He argued that the construction of homes, utility poles, and roads could be seen as impediments to the movement of a barrier beach.
“I don’t think it’s fair for this commission to reject the project in order to pass it on to the DEP,” Sheridan said.
The Commission voted in favor of the project, with Dawicki as the lone dissenting voice.
Next, the Conservation Commission held a continued hearing regarding a Notice of Intent filed by Diane L. D’Orlando of 52 Pico Beach Road. Davignon represented D’Orlando, who would like to install two 100-gallon propane tanks for a single-family home, to be used for heating.
“We discussed at the last meeting two things. One was whether a concrete pad could be substituted with different materials, such as timbers. The other was regarding getting a permit for the tanks. [Permitting authority] Fire Chief said that the tanks absolutely have to be on concrete pads,” said Davignon.
He also said that an abutter had requested that the tanks be relocated to a different side of the property.
The Conservation Commission voted unanimously in favor of the plans as presented.
Davignon then represented Michael T. Huguenin and Sharon Chown regarding their Notice of Intent to construct a pier for access into Buzzards Bay for recreational boating, fishing and swimming. An existing stone jetty would be used for the landward side of the pier, while a pile-supported timber pier would make up the seaward end.
“I have submitted an outline of the changes that have occurred [since the last meeting],” said Davignon. “The jetty will be removed in its entirety and then rebuilt.”
“The Army Corps of Engineers signed off on the project,” he said.
“We mentioned it in the last meeting that pier will be threatened in a storm,” said Commission member Tom Copps.
Davignon said he sent the plans to the Harbormaster, who saw no conflicts.
The Commission voted in favor of the project.
Next, the Conservation Commission held a continued public hearing regarding a Notice of Intent filed by Dean Withrow, who would like to build a single-family house, with driveway and well, on Grand View Avenue.
Dave Davignon represented Withrow at the meeting. The project was met with some contention from abutters regarding water views and drainage problems in the neighborhood.
He noted that they will install the drainage structures first before a building permit for the home is issued. He indicated a bold-faced note printed on the plans offering two different options for the drainage problems and allowing for the abutting family, the Hendersons, to decide which option was best.
One idea would use a larger drainage pipe that would cross over the Hendersons’ property line, while the other plan would use a smaller diameter pipe that would not encroach upon their property.
“This area is a mess. It’s a mess because nothing was complied with. Tonight you don’t have a good plan to act on,” said Robert Moore, attorney for the Henderson family. He cited the changes in the purpose of the land, from being solely for drainage to being the location of a home, as problematic.
“What we’ve done is take the original drainage basin that was proposed and we’ve elongated it. And we’ve made it 1.8 times larger than originally proposed,” said Davignon.
“What’s in front of us now is what we’re here to hear, strictly on conservation issues. We’re here to strictly speak about the Wetlands Protection Act.” He felt some of the discussion was more appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Davignon said that after the first public hearing, they submitted a solution to the drainage issue, at which point the Hendersons hired legal counsel. He said they created another alternative to the drainage problem, but they were unable to come to an accord.
“We’re at a point where we can’t do anything else. Without their authority to go onto their property, we can’t proceed with what needs to be fixed,” Davignon said.
“This looks to me to be like a project that will never satisfy the people it really needs to satisfy,” said Newton.
“I have had a chance to walk the property, looked at the plans, and I watched the video from a couple weeks ago. I noticed the placement of the wells, which have to be at least 10 feet from a property line or five feet from a structure and neither well on this property complies,” said Al Ewing of Ewing Engineering, whom the Hendersons hired to consult on the project.
Newton said that the wells were a Board of Health issue.
“We have either an incomplete or invalid project without the consent of all the landowners,” said Commission member Bob Rogers.
Davignon requested a continuance so that he and the abutters can continue to work together to find an agreement. The Commission unanimously granted the continuance.
Next, the Commission heard from Tony Almeida, on behalf of many Grand View Avenue residents, who presented a letter signed by the abutters, requesting the construction of retention basins and installation of new fill around lots 77, 78 and 80 in order to rectify non-compliance issues.
Newton said that the Commission has a new conservation agent who would be able to work with Almeida to determine the best course of action.
Then, the Commission heard from Davignon on behalf of Daniel and Laurie DaRosa, continuing a hearing regarding a Notice of Intent to install coconut fiber envelopes of sand along a coastal bank near 1 Goodspeed Island. They would also be planting native grasses and shrubs in the area.
“Since our last meeting, I was requested by the Commission to come up with a maintenance plan of the proposed coastal bank project,” Davignon said after handing out a first-draft of the plan to the Commission.
His proposal included where staging equipment would be kept, the type of storm event that could require maintenance and suggestions for reconstruction materials.
While the project is overall well-intentioned, Peter Newton did not feel it was necessary, and as the applicant cannot demonstrate a need for the project, the Commission should not vote to approve it.
“We’ve had 100 years of beach there and it looks like we’ll have 100 more years of beach,” Newton said.
“The beach didn’t move much when [Hurricane] Bob came through,” said Ken Dawicki.
“The only real erosion problem comes along the pedestrian walkway, which can be alleviated by building a raised walking platform. But there’s very little evidence that erosion is a big problem in the area. What you’re suggesting is removing the material that’s there and fundamentally changing the landscape. I just don’t think it’s necessary,” he said.
“It’s not going to change the wave action near the house. It’s not going to change the flooding characteristics. What he wants to do is put into place measures to make sure the coastal bank doesn’t get closer to his house. And frankly, there’s no evidence to support that,” said Newton.
A few members of the Commission also took issue with the inclusion of PVC-coated wire mesh material as part of the plans.
“A lot of people don’t feel that it’s biodegradable. Many communities have outlawed it,” Newton said.
“In my opinion, he’s trying to enhance and beautify the bank under the regulations that he can only do it for prevention of erosion. He’s not doing it for protection of his dwelling,” said Bob Rogers.
“I really don’t know how I feel about it. I don’t think I can make a decision on this. I don’t feel comfortable with the benefits or the denial of it,” said Dawicki.
The Commission did not vote in favor of the plan. Two members voted in favor, two voted against, and Dawicki abstained.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission will be on Monday, September 24 at 6:30 pm at the Town Hall.
By Eric Tripoli
