Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedden Comment Attachment B v6 pdf updatedFilename: /Attachment B v6 Attachment B Review of NOI SE 003-6151 Documents Introduction This section is review and summary of the “December 28, 2023 Notice of Intent Application, Proposed Extension of Existing Pier; 30 Oxford Drive, Cotuit” along with 1/16/24 updates. This project has been assigned MDEP Wetlands Protection Act Number #SE 003-6151. The project began in 2023 with the submission of December 28, 2023 Notice of Intent Application, Proposed Extension of Existing Pier; 30 Oxford Drive, Cotuit (NOIA). The NOIA was discussed at The 1/16/24 Conservation Commission meeting. The project currently is under discussion with the Commission. Findings and Questions In this section we summarize the findings of our review. The issues are not in any particular order but are somewhat grouped document. We have tried to clear identifying the document and issue being discussed. Mostly we are asking for clarification of a point and/or requesting that a specific action be taken. 1. The “Plan To Accompany A Notice Of Intent” (PTAAOI) does not clearly and accurately show the existing condition and they are a critical part of this review. The drawing has Foot Note 1 stating “This plan is based on a limited site survey.” Though the statement is explanatory it cannot excuse a missing or inaccurate site plan of the existing conditions at the time of submission. An accurate drawing showing Existing Condition in Dec 2023 should be included in the file. Any differences between it and the SC3-5062 permit drawing files in May 2014 should be explained. A separate drawing showing Existing Conditions should be done. 2. The photo from Attachment C shows the back yard from the water. The PTAAOI should accurately label the float shown and reflect the tree line and the lawn line in both the 50-foot and 100-foot buffer zone. These should be updated, along with other details, on an Existing Condition drawing. 3. (Removed) 4. Based on the information in Attachment A, the PTAAO Foot Note 2 stating that the new work : “depicted on this plan was previously approved in 2013 permit SC3-5062” is not accurate. The permit was issued in 2014 and did not include a pier extension. The statement should be removed. 5. Similarly, the PTAAO drawing section shown below has a note attached to the new pier that states “Previously approved pier and float SE#-5062” is not correct. TownOfBarnstable ... CONT NOI - 30 Oxford Drive - Nedder 30-Oxford-Drive-revised plan Search in document More 33% View plain text The permit was issued in 2014 and did not include a pier extension. The statement should be removed. 6. Foot Note 6 from the PTAAOI submitted says the seasonal dock would be stored in front of the house. The seasonal dock is about 22’ by 4’. This is a very long haul from the pier and will probably need heavy equipment to accomplish. The application should provide written description of the procedure and equipment to be used. Explain how this can be done, twice a year, without disturbing the 50- and 100-foot buffer zones or Wildlife Habitat. TownOfBarnstable ... CONT NOI - 30 Oxford Drive - Nedder 30-Oxford-Drive-revised plan Search in document More 33% View plain text 7. Section A-A of the PTAAOI shows piling locations. There is brief description of installation in the project description. Installing the pilings will cause a major disruption to the ecology of the pond edge; there is fauna all around, there are frogs and frog eggs, there are birds nesting chicks, many fish swim there, there may be shell fish and other species. We suggest Chapter 237: Wetlands Protection requires a more detail plan for how the piles can be drilled, what the impacts might be and any suggested mitigation. Will pilings be removed annually? 8. Section 3.0 Proposed Activities of the Project Description paragraph 2 documents says the project conforms to “Guidelines for Fresh Water Docks, Piers, and Floats”. Chapter 707 response checks it conforms to Chapter 703 : Private Docks and Piers. Do the requirements of Chapter 703 apply to this project? 9. Section 3.0 Proposed Activities of the Project Description paragraph 2 documents says the project “is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts…”. This conclusion needs further discussion as included below. 10. Section 4.0 Mitigation of the Project Description asserts that the “proposed project will have minimal impact to Land Under Water, Inland Bank, BVW, and the 100-foot buffer Zones” without adequate back-up documentation. Example: Land Under Water impact. There will be significant disturbance of the area of the pond bottom under and around the construction site. This area of the pond has never been disturbed and no one knows what plant, fish, reptiles(frogs) and animal life are present in the sediment. A reasonable estimate of the disturbed area is at least 800 SF (16’x50’). Chapter 237 Section 11 Burden of Proof requires that the applicant “shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of credible evidence” that the project will have no impact. The applicant must also consider the Cumulative Effects of the impact if other parties did the same. There are about 5 other similar sites on this pond and the Cumulative Impact of all these sites being developed must be considered. The Cumulative Impact could over 4000 SF. Example: Inland Bank and BVW. There will be significant disturbance every fall and spring when the docks are put in and taken out. Spring has ducks and heron nesting on the pond edge. There have been multiple sighting of Juvenal and adult Blue Backed Heron on that edge of the pond. Throughout the year Osprey frequent the pond and the trees around it. Fall see an occasional loon stopping in. The Wildlife Habitat will be disturbed by construction workers multiple days per year; estimated at two days for the seasonal changeover and 2 for maintenance. This is 4 days of significant disruption with a new dock. The new man-made structure will be unsightly and foreign to all wildlife. Chapter 237 Section 11 Burden of Proof requires that the applicant “shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of credible evidence” that the project will have no impact. The applicant must also consider the Cumulative Effects of the impact if other parties did the same. There are about 5 other similar sites on this pond and the Cumulative Impact of all these sites being developed could result in 20 days of disruption to the pond habitat each year. We suggest that a more rigorous Mitigation Plan be requested that addresses these and other related questions. 11. The PTAAOI shows Lot 80 adjacent to Lot 79. It appears that the western boundary of Lot 80 is missing. The correct boundary should show the project has another abutter.