Pier, Access & Shoreline Study (PASS) Committee
Minutes of 01/09/03 Meeting
Meeting came to order at 7:40 p.m. Paul Brogna, Shawn Dahlen, John Hagerty, Heidi Pape Laird, Peter Roveto and Bill Tenhoor were present at the meeting.
Minutes were approved for the PASS meeting of 12/19/02.
The agenda for tonight includes Urban Harbors Institute (UHI) study and our proposals for regulations
The next PASS meetings are scheduled for January 23rd, and 30th, 2003, at 7:30 in the Duxbury Senior Center. There is a potential meeting for January 16th with UHI to go over the study.
Our recommendations cover seven areas:
1. Round table of responsible groups to review each application
2. Scenic View Areas
3. Landings and Ways to the Water setbacks
4. Pier dimensions/proportions/design
5. Density of piers
6. Shared neighborhood piers
7. Repair/reconstruction/new/removal of piers
We discussed our criteria:
· Safety
· Protection of habitat
· Sustainable human activity
We discussed concerns:
· Regulation versus limitation of piers
· Acceleration of wealth
· Build-out
· Rights versus responsibilities
· Differences in regions of Duxbury
· Differences in the various town landings/ways to the water
· More access means more parking
The proposals
1. Round Table: Don Beers recommended a round table of all regulatory groups/persons responsible for submitting recommendations to go over each pier application. This has the advantage of saving time in the application process of getting each response separately and also it enables communication among all of the responsible parties. We agreed that this was a good idea. The Round Table should include the Harbor Master, a member of the Shellfish Advisory Committee, a member of the Waterfront Committee, a Public Health official and the Building Inspector. They should go over each pier application and produce a document with their recommendations and reservations to submit to the Conservation Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals This should occur prior to
those groups meeting regarding the pier application. The document will be in lieu of individual letters from each of the responsible parties.
2. Scenic View Areas (SVA): There was basic agreement regarding the mapping of SVAs in Public zones, versus scenic views from the Town Landings and Ways to the Water. Three of the sites are along Bay Road. One is at Eagle’s Nest and the third and largest is along Washington St, St. George St. Powder Point Ave. and King Caesar Rd where they front on Blue Fish River. Some of the SVAs are on estuaries and we had agreed that at present we don’t have the information about estuaries to limit piers there. Heidi agreed to find out if anadromous and catadromous habitats have been identified. Issues to debate, prohibition of new piers in these areas versus special SVA design restrictions. Can repair be restricted within the existing profile and
footprint of a pier of pre-standard design? Can the handrail be restricted to a ¾ to 1-inch pipe rather than a wooden handrail? Will we restrict the height of a handrail to 36-inches? Will we restrict height of piers to 3 ½ feet? Will we recommend the mid rail be made of ¼-inch wire? A matter for discussion is to limit the overall length of a pier including ramp and floats to 50% of the width of the property at mean high water. What is the limitation of repair versus reconstruction in SVAs?
3. Town Landings and Ways to the Water Set backs (TLWW): We agreed that there should be reasonable restrictions. The amount of setback still needs to be discussed. Setbacks in the range of 30 feet to 250 feet have been proposed. It has been discussed to vary the setback depending on the use of the TLWW site. This includes considering boat launching and parking space. Human uses versus Scenic Views might suggest different setbacks.
4. Pier dimensions/proportions/design: Keep existing regulations. Add the platform shall not extend more than 2 feet from the water ward end of the salt marsh except to allow the attached float to be located water ward of any vegetation. The platform at the water ward end shell not exceed 6 feet by 10 feet or 2 feet by 10 feet wider than the walkway whichever is the least. Floats attached to piers shall not exceed 200 square feet. There is a discussion about whether 200-foot piers should be permitted where the marsh extends more than 200 feet.
5. Density of Piers: A proposal for further discussion would limit new piers only if they are over 250 feet from any existing piers
6. Shared and Neighborhood Piers: We agreed that at least two contiguous properties need to be involved for a pier to get Shared or Neighborhood designation and to get the benefit of the relaxed regulations. Some felt that three piers need to be the minimum limit due to the possibility that piers might be enabled where no pier would have been permitted due to property width restrictions being overcome. We agreed that the property owners have to agree to be deed restricted. We agreed that multiple floats would be permitted with a cap of a certain number (four was discussed). We will consider allowing neighborhood piers to be able to bypass
the 200-foot limitation to a certain extent. We agreed to waive the internal property line setback requirement. We agreed to consider waiving regulations for multiple-ownership of a single pier where owners without shorefront property wish to build a pier on a single plot of common land, as on Standish Shore.
7. Repair/reconstruction/new/removal: It was agreed that removal is required by the state so no requirements need be offered for removal of piers. A repaired pier is a pier that requires some rebuilding for less than 75% of the estimated cost to remove and replace the existing pier. Can we require that these repairs not change the footprint and profile of existing piers in SVAs, even if these piers don’t meet current regulations? Reconstruction (cost greater than 75% of estimated cost to remove and replace the existing pier) of existing piers must meet the current regulations for new piers. Reconstruction of existing piers in SVAs
would meet the more stringent SVA design regulations. There was debate over the amount of time until a damaged/rotting pier must be reconstructed. After that amnesty period of 2-5 years the pier will have to go through the process of applying for a new pier permit.
| 
