HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Bob Perry 3.4.2022
Grant, Kelly
From:Bob Perry <bobperry@capecodengineering.com>
Sent:Friday, March 4, 2022 1:36 PM
To:Grant, Kelly
Cc:'Francis V Lloyd'
Subject:222 Pleasant Street, So. Yarmouth - Dock project - SE 83-2326
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 Grant, Yarmouth Conservation Commission,
I have a few points to mention here because the sense of impropriety lingers.
I was unprepared for the unexpected interpretation of the Conservation Commission concerning the legal status
of Lloyd’s dock. A similar case I was involved with at 232 Pleasant St. was handled by the Commission far
differently.
There are approximately 13 docks with platforms along the Pleasant St. immediate reach of the river. The
Lloyd platform does appear to have been singled out because it is older, accompanied by the Commission’s
interpretation that it is therefore unpermitted relative to a wetland permit process that was unavailable when it
was created. In the absence of definitions in the Yarmouth regulations of “existing legal”
and “unpermitted” as those terms appear in # 18 & # 19 of the Yarmouth Wetland regs, classifying the
Lloyd’s dock as not being “existing legal” or as “unpermitted” doesn’t agree with plain language definitions.
It will be helpful to the Lloyds if we can clarify if the regs. # 18 & # 19 use of the terms “existing legal” in # 18
and then, in # 19 “unpermitted” was done in order to avoid the use of the word “ illegal” in # 19 or if use of the
word “unpermitted” in # 19 had a specific meaning other than the opposite of “existing legal”.
From Websters:
Legally Existing means a use that predates present regulations but was legally constructed or established at the
time the use or construction first commenced.
Definition of unpermitted: not permitted : DISALLOWED, BANNED
1
If “ banned” means not permitted under current regulations then it follows that all docks, with or without
Orders of Conditions, coming in for reconstruction must be considered the same as Lloyd’s was. If an Order
of Conditions takes precedence over other forms of authorization such as Commission acknowledgement for
Chapt. 91 licensure of an older facility then that practice is unfair and counter-productive.
It is costly and time consuming to enter, participate and comply with the review process. Some
improvements typically result from the process. It is reasonable to expect a fair and consistent outcome,
especially with straightforward applications such as the proposed replacement of an long standing, existing,
licensed dock facility.
I appreciate your time taken to consider my question..
Sincerely
Bob Perry
Cape Cod Engineering, Inc.
2