Skip Navigation
Click to return to website
This table is used for column layout.
Conservation Commission Minutes 06/01/16
FINAL

Present for the Conservation Commission and attending the meeting were:  Candy Shweder, Chairman, Joan Malkin, Vice Chairman, Sandy Broyard, Bob Hungerford, Russell Maloney, Maureen Eisner, Pam Goff, Chris Murphy and Chuck Hodgkinson.  Also attending were George Sourati, Robert Soros, Chip Nylen, Tara Marden, Beth Hays, George Brush and Alex Parker.  

The meeting came to order at 12:30 PM.  Ms. Shweder appointed Alternate Commissioner Russell Maloney as a voting member.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOI – LOCAL BYLAW ONLY; NO DEP FILE #; TARA MARDEN FOR FOOL’S HIGH TIDE, LLC; 25 East Lane; AP 32-68.1:               Ms. Shweder opened the continued public hearing at 12:30 PM and confirmed the eligible voters as:  Sandy, Candy, Pam, Joan, Chris, Russell and Bob.  Ms. Marden briefly summarized the beach nourishment proposal that was approved by the DEP in a Superseding Order of Conditions.  The project is beach nourishment intended to protect the existing single-family residence that is approximately 82 feet from the top of the coastal bank.  The cobble berm will be a storm buffer to the coastal bank.  It adds 1600 cubic yards of cobble to construct a berm above mean high water and an additional 650 cubic yards of sand on top of the cobble and as an apron from the berm to the east and west property bounds.  The berm will run 314 linear feet and the sand will run 415 linear feet.  The total project area is 17,450 sq. ft.

Ms. Marden referred to her answers to the Commission’s written questions that were distributed a week earlier.  There were no significant questions from the Commission.  Ms. Marden added John Keene Excavation will perform the work and will transport the cobble and sand via a conveyor belt stationed in the parking lot.  A front end bucket loader and an excavator will maneuver the cobble and sand on the beach to the defined specifications.  The Commission asked how the machinery will access the beach.  Ms. Marden said they will seek permission from the Stonewall Beach Association to use their parking area that is only slightly above the height of the grassy area behind the beach sand.  The Commission agreed this would be the ideal place to access the beach—if approved.  The Commission asked for the percentage mix of the proposed sizes of cobble – 3” - 6” diameter; 6” - 12” diameter; 12” - 24” diameter.  Ms. Marden said she would need to provide the specific mix.

Ms. Marden added they are planning to monitor the performance and movement of the beach nourishment at least two times per year.  The Commission asked if the data could be shared and Ms. Marden agreed.

Abutter Alex Parker asked what happens if the berm performs more as a revetment than as beach nourishment.  How will this impact the neighboring properties and Stonewall Beach?  Ms. Marden said this is the first cobble project she has done so far which is why the monitoring will be done.  Two abutter letters were also read for the record.

With no further comment from the public a motion was made to close the hearing at 2:05 PM.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved with seven in favor and one abstention (Ms. Eisner who is not an eligible voter).
Chuck H. had to leave the meeting and a tape recorder was brought in for the remainder.   A second motion was made to approve the plan but at a smaller scale so both the Commission and applicant can monitor and learn about the performance on the beach over time and during storm events.  The motion was seconded.  In discussion the details of the approval and project scope were agreed as follows.  The option for pragmatic construction adjustments were allowed for the Conservation Agent following a site visit with Ms. Marden and Matt Merry from John Keene Excavation.

  • The beach nourishment plan is approved but, only to the following scale, specifications and quantities of sediment:
  • A total of 375 cubic yards of cobble (1.2 cubic yards or 32 cubic feet/foot of coastal bank @ 314 running feet of bank) shall be used for the berm abutting the costal bank.  This is equal to the quantity of cobble berm used in the nourishment plan approved and installed for the closest property to this site (SE12 – 678).  This berm is successfully performing as anticipated.
  • As originally proposed a total of 650 cubic yards of matching sand sediment shall be added as sand veneer on top of the cobble berm to the beach and as an apron on the east and west sides of the berm (415 running feet of coastal bank between the west and east property bounds).
  • No cobble shall be larger than 12 inches in diameter.  The applicant shall use a mix of 50 percent 3” – 6” diameter cobble and 50 percent 6” – 12”diameter cobble.   The cobble will be mixed and distributed onto the beach.
  • An additional 200 cubic yards of 3” – 6” cobble shall be placed from the toe of the coastal bank to approximately 20 feet from the bank to stabilize a pathway for the excavator and front end bucket loader.
  • Only the conveyor shall be used to transport the percentages and mix of cobble and sand from the driveway staging area to the beach.
  • A front-end bucket loader and excavator shall be used to distribute the sediment on the beach.  The beach access point for this equipment shall be agreed among the applicant, contractor and Conservation Agent before work begins.  An available entrance site shall be selected that uses the lowest elevation possible for access to the beach with the equipment; preferably through permission from the Stonewall Beach Association parking lot. If permission is not granted by the Association the Applicant, contractor and Conservation Agent shall select the access route with the least amount of potential resource impacts.
  • The equipment cannot remain on the beach when not in use as the tidal surge will damage the machinery.
  • Continued monitoring shall take place to ensure the resource areas are protected.  The applicant shall provide the Commission with copies of all monitoring reports as they are available.  The movement of sediment concentrations, additional erosion, scouring at both ends of the berm, impact on the inter-tidal zone and 200 feet of the abutting neighbor’s bank and beach on both the west and east sides of the property shall be evaluated—along with other measures as deemed appropriate among the Commission and applicant.  These monitoring reports shall be automatically done twice/year in the fall and summer seasons (on or about December 15 and on or about June 15) and after a significant storm event during three-year term of this Order.
  • Irrigation of the coastal bank re-vegetation near the edges will be limited to protect the integrity of the coastal bank.
  • A retreat plan for each of the two sheds near the top of the coastal bank shall be submitted by December 31, 2016.   A separate retreat plan for the house and infrastructure shall also be provided by December 31, 2016.  This plan shall identify a specific trigger or distance between the top of the coastal bank and the house that will activate the permitting of the retreat plan.  This trigger distance shall be such that it provides time to design, permit and execute the plan in a non-emergency manner and allows the required equipment to perform the work with minimal damage to the coastal bank and coastal bank buffer zone.
  • The applicant shall provide an outline of the revised design, specifications and procedures in the form of a narrative.  This narrative shall include the phases and salient details for constructing and monitoring the project.  Revised site plans shall also be provided showing the revised overall footprint, composition of sediment by location along the 415-foot length of coastal bank and the cross section plans (as previously provided).  The narrative and revised plans shall be submitted for review before work begins.
  • Erosion control measures shall be installed in a way that protects the section of access road to the site that abuts a Bordering Vegetated Wetland.  This system shall be installed and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins.  It shall also be maintained in good condition throughout construction.
  • If it is deemed that additional sediment is warranted on the basis of the monitoring reports the applicant shall submit an application for an amended Order of Conditions.
  • The Commission reserves the right to inspect the coastal bank and beach to assess how the sand beach nourishment and cobble berm are performing.  If it is determined by the Commission that the work is not performing as planned (i.e. as beach nourishment without adverse impacts to the resource) and is performing more as a coastal engineering structure thus adversely affecting the resource area and its environs, the Commission may require the Owner to remove the work and restore the area to its condition prior to the work or implement any other exit strategy as may be deemed necessary.  If it is determined the work is not successfully performing as outlined above, an exit strategy and restoration plan shall be determined among the Commission and Owner within 30 days of this decision.
  • 310 CMR 10.30(3) of the Wetlands Regulations, promulgated under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40, and Section 2.05 (4C) of the Chilmark Conservation Commission Rules & Regulations, promulgated under the Chilmark Wetlands Protection Bylaws, requires that no coastal engineering structure, such as a bulkhead, revetment, or seawall shall be permitted on a bank, or on an eroding bank, at any time in the future to protect the project allowed by this Order of Conditions.
At the conclusion of this discussion the motion came to a vote and passed unanimously with seven in favor and one abstention (Ms. Eisner).

NOI SE 12 - 771; GEORGE SOURATI FOR JACK ENGLERT; 31 Flanders Lane;          AP 26-29:  Ms. Shweder opened the public hearing at 2:20 PM.  Mr. Sourati reviewed a plan to upgrade the sewage disposal system for the existing two dwellings.  A 2 inch pvc pressure pipe is proposed to run underneath a stream and wetland.  The closest excavation area is 25 feet from the wetland edge and 50 feet from a pond.   A directional boring method will be used to run the pvc pipe underneath the stream.  He added the wetlands were flagged by Doug Cooper.

The Commission discussed how this is a pre-existing and sensitive site as the wetland flows into Menemsha Pond and asked if a de-nitrifying system is being proposed.  Mr. Sourati said the current design meets standard title V specifications and said a FAST de-nitrifying system could be added to the system.  With no public comment a motion was made to close the hearing at   2:40 PM.  The motion was seconded and unanimously approved.  A subsequent motion was made to approve the plan with the following special conditions:  1.  As offered by the applicant the septic system is approved only if it is upgraded to a FAST, nitrogen reduction system.  2.  The erosion control system shall be installed and approved by the Conservation Agent before work begins.  The motion came to a vote and passed unanimously with eight in favor.

ADMINISTRATION:
        
The following documents were signed:

Order of Conditions SE 12 – 757; Town of Chilmark; AP 35-17.3, 17.4
Order of Conditions SE 12 – 759; Squib. Farm, Inc.; AP 35-1.30, 17.3, 17.4
Order of Conditions signature page only; No DEP File #; Local Bylaw Only; Fool’s High Tide AP 32-68.1.
Order of Conditions SE 12 – 771; Englert; AP 26-29.

Letter of support:  Bill Wilcox $105,000 Grant Application:  Mr. Wilcox is seeking a letter of support for a grant application to obtain an accurate assessment of the nitrogen loading to the Tisbury Great Pond from 70 agricultural sources within the Tisbury Great Pond Watershed.  The Mass. Estuaries Project (MEP) report projected the nitrogen load at 6508 kg/year based upon recommended fertilization rates for each crop type – not on the actual fertilization rates used by operators within the watershed.  Other partners are:  MVC; West Tisbury Conservation Commission; MV Agricultural Society.  The Commission unanimously endorsed the plan.
                
The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 15, 2016 @ 12:30 PM.  With no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 2:45 PM. Respectfully submitted by Chuck Hodgkinson, C.A.S.