HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence 10.25.2021
Grant, Kelly
From:Grant, Kelly
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 4:11 PM
To:'Wayne Tavares of Wet Tech Land Design'
Subject:RE: Dispute...is there a DEP intermediary from a positive RDA finding?
Hi Wayne
No offense taken – we are all just doing our jobs.
The plan referred to is the one you provided with the application that shows the coastal bank and salt marsh.
My understanding is that the Commission did not find that the evidence provided clearly demonstrated the absence of
river. In particular they commented that the bathymetry showed the transition to deeper waters of the kettle pond
occurs north of this property and that the river still has parallel banks in this section. I believe the channel marker
reference was referring to the fact that the water body was transitioning from a narrower water body to a more open,
deeper section.
I don’t believe the Commission is required to provide proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The Commission
reviews the material provided and makes a determination.
Here is a mark up to show what is meant by parallel bank characteristics
The instructions for requesting Departmental Action by DEP are attached to the Determination.
Regards
1
Kelly Grant
Conservation Administrator
Town of Yarmouth
508-398-2231 Ext 1288
kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us
From: Wayne Tavares of Wet Tech Land Design \[mailto:wettechlanddesign@gmail.com\]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 9:47 AM
To: Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us>
Subject: Dispute...is there a DEP intermediary from a positive RDA finding?
Attention! This email originates outside of the organization. Do not open attachments or click links unless you
are sure this email is from a known sender and you know the content is safe. Call the sender to verify if unsure.
Otherwise delete this email.
Kelly-
No disrespect and you know I have to go before the commission again, but, unless there was another plan
that was not shown last Thursday night. These responses from the commission:
I would object:
to "parallel bank characteristics"(?!),
"observed(?) flow" (from deep end in the pond "lobe" toward the river), and;
"mouth of river characteristics".
There was no no substantive "proof" of these features. One commissioner used channel markers(?) which are
used in (1) Plymouth Harbor (obviously not a river); (2) Woods Hole Harbor (again not a river); and (3) I
mentioned Waquoit Bay (again, not a river). The commissioner was desperate enough to prove a point
through channel markers which appear in every body of water to "show the way" for boating or show the best
pathway for boats and has nothing to do with demarking a river. This was only one of the issues that
lacked substance. It is clear (from the aforementioned, (and other points listed) that the commission is seeking
to expand its jurisdiction by absorbing a resource area with higher performance standards..
With a NOI, we have recourse in superceding orders; RDA's have what recourse?
My presentation had geological evidence of Follins Pond being a Kettle Pond and therefore being formed prior
to the outlet "river"; topographic proof of the bathymetrics clearly showing the river bottom in its confined
"river" location, and common sense proof of Follins Pond connection to Kelley's Bay through a clear, and
separate riverine system that is approx 247' to 207' wide on each end.
2
Respectfully,
Wayne Tavares LA PWS CS
Wayne Tavares
508-642-7701
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wayne-tavares-8a60b51b/
3