Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOIShorefront . Professional Services on Land or At Sea www. shorefr ontconsulting. com shorefrontconsulting @gmail. com Yarmouth Conservation Commission February 22,2024 Attn: Brittany DiRienzo 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664-4492 By hand delivery and email Re: Notice of Intent Aoolication Filins Packase: Proposed Shorefront Modifications and Beach Nourishment Joseph and Meredith Zona 39 Seth Lane South Yarmouth, MA 02664 Map 61, Parcel54 On behalf of my clients, Joseph and Meredith Zon4l am submitting I copy of the completed Notice of Intent application filing package, plus (1) full size (24"x 36") original plus 6 copies of the project plan, and three original checks for the municipal filing for the above referenced project. Electronic copies of all documents will be emailed to the conservation office. The following items are enclosed: . Notice of Intent Application and NOI Fee Transmittal Form. Signed Administrative Checklist. Performance Standards Narative, Alternatives Analysis, and Construction Protocol. Copy of shorefront evaluation of alternatives for the site.. Copy of Shellfish Survey and plan. Photographs of the site. Yarmouth USGS Map, Assessor Map 61, and Flood Map, identifying locus ' Copy of Check #xxxx for $767.50 made payable to the Commonwealth of Mass. for state share of DEP fee, (was sent directly to lockbox). Check #xxxx for $792.50 check made payable to the Town of Yarmouth for town share of DEP fee. Check #xxxx for $470.00 for the Town of Yarmouth By-Law fee (Category 5, dock, 44' x$2lFT.). Check #xxxx for $10.00 check made payable to the Town of Yarmouth for advertising fee. Affidavit of Service, Abutter Notification Letter and Abutter List. "Plan Showing Proposed Shorefront Modifications", by Shorefront Consulting, dated 1ll3l23 (1 sheet).. Certified mail receipts will be emailed with the electronic application package. Copy of the EDEP submittal confirmation Please schedule this filing for your March 7,2024 public hearing. If there are arry questions or concerns regarding this filing, please contact me as soon as possible. Sincerely, (\ Yiaf Mark Burgess Shorefront Consulting B.S. Ocean Engineering Enclosures: As Stated cc: Mass. DEP/SERO - Wetlands (by EDEP) Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries (by email) Joseph and Meredith Zona (Applicants) Yarmouth Waterways and Shellfish Committee (by hand delivery and email) Shorefront Consulting 290 Center St., Dennis Port, MA 02639 508-280-8046 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c, 13 1, $40 hovided by MassDEP: MassDEPFile#: eDEP Transaction #: I 67950 I CitylTown:YARMOUTH 02664 70.1 8 1 60W 54 c.ZipCode e. Longitude g.Parcel./Lot # 2. r-- Residential Subdivision 4. -Commercial,{Industrial 6. ,- Utilities 8. - Agriculture (eg., cranberries, forestry) 10. -- Other A.General Information l. Project Location: a. Steet Address b. Cif/Town d. Latitude f. Map/Plat# 39 SETHLANE YARMOUIH 41.66787N 6t 2. Applicant: ,v Individual Organization a. First Name JOSEPH AND MEREDITH c. Organization d. MailingAddress 1 ANDREWS WAy e. City/Town ARILINGTON f. State h. Phone Number 617-87'7-6838 i. Fa.x b.LastName ZONA MA g.ZipCode 02474 j. Email meredith.zona@stantec.com 3.Property Owner: Imole than one owner a.FirstName JOSEPHANDMEREDITH b.LastName ZONA c. Organization d. MaitingAddress l ANDREWS WAy e. CitylTown ARILINGTON f.State MA g.ZipCode 02474 h. PhoneNumber 617-877-6838 i. Fax j.Email meredith.zona@stantec.com 4.Representative: a. FirstName MARK b. LastName BURGESS c. Organization SHOREFRONT CONSLILTING d. MailingAddress 290 CENTER STREET e. City/Town DENNIS PORT f. State MA g.ZipCode 02639 h.Phone Number 508-280-8046 i.Fax j.Email shorefrontconsulting@gmail.com 5.Total wPA Fee Paid (Automatically inserted from NoI wetland Fee Transmittal Form): a.Total Fee Paid 1,560.00 b.State Fee Paid 767.50 c.City/Town Fee paid 792.50 6.General Project Description: PROPOSED SHOREFRONTMODIFICATIONS THATINCLUDET}IEREMOVALOFHARD STRUCTURESAND THE INSTALLATION OF BEACH NOTruSHMENT. Ta.Project Type: 1.,7 SingleFamilyHome 3. l- Limited Prqect Driveway Crossing 5.f DocklPier 7. f- Coastal Engineering Stucture 9. r-' Transportation 7b.Is any portion ofthe proposed activity eligible to be treated as a limited project subject to 310 CMR 10.24 (coastal) or 310 Page I of7 * ELECTRONIC COPY CMR 10.53 (inland)? l. ,- Yes v No 2. Limited Project 8.Property recorded at the Registry ofDeeds for: a.County: BARNSTABLE b.Certificate: B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) 1.Buffer Zone & Resowce Area Impacts (temporary & permanent): I- This is a Buffer Zone only project - Check if the project is located only in the Buffer Zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Inland Bank, or Coastal Resource Area. 2.lnland Resource Areas: (See 310 CMR 10.54 - 10.58, if not applicable, go to Section B.3. Coastal Resource Areas) Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G'L. c' 131, $40 Ifyes, describe which limited project applies to this project: c.Book: 33098 hovided by MassDEP: MassDEP File #: eDEP Transaction #: 1 67950 1 CitylTown:YARMOUTTI d.Page: 2t8 a.l- Bank b. l- Bordering Vegetated Wetland c.l- Land under Waterbodies and Waterways d. f- Bordering Land Subject to Flooding e.f Isolated land Subject to Flooding f J7 Riverfront Area 2. Width of Riverfront Area (check one) 3. Total area ofRiverfront Area on the site ofthe proposed project 4. Proposed Alteration of the Riverfront Area: 1425 1. linear feet 1. square feet 1. Square feet 3. cubic yards dredged 1. square feet b. square feetwithin 100 ft. c. square feetbetween 100 ft. and 200 ft. 2. square feet 3. cubic feet offlood storage lost 4. cubic feet replaced 1. square feet 2. cubic feet offlood storage lost 3. cubic feet replaced l. Name of Waterway (if any) i- 25 ft.. - Designated Densely Developed Areas only l- 100 ft. - New agricultural projects only in 200 ft. - A11 other projects 193',78 square feet 2. linear feet 2. square feet 2. square feet t425 a. total square feet Page2 of7 * ELECTRONIC COPY 5. Has an altematives analysis been done and is it attached to this NOI? 6. Was the lot where the activity is proposed created prior to August 7, 1996? 3.Coastal Resource Areas: (See 310 CMR 10.25 - 10.35) Resource Area Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File #: eDEP Transaction #: 1 67950 1 CitylTown:YARMOUTH 131, $40 i7 Yesl-No ,-7 Yesf- No Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) a.I- Designated Port Areas b.l7 Land Under the Ocean c.t- BarrierBeaches d.,V Coastal Beaches e.i Coastal Dunes f i- Coastal Banks g. l- Rocky lntertidal Shores h.i Salt Marshes i - Land Under Salt Ponds Indicate size under 870 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dredged Land under the ocean below, Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coatstal Duues, below 2290 1. square feet 1. square feet 1. linear feet 1. square feet 1. square feet 1. square feet 124 2. cubic yards beach nourishment 2. cubic yards dune nourishment 2. sq ft restoration, rehab, crea. 2. cubic yards dredged j.17 tand Containing Shellfish 3160 1. square feet k. f" Fish Runs lndicate size under Coasal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above 1. cubic yards dredged I i7 Land Subject to Coastal 141 0 StormFlowage 1. square feet 4. Restoration/Enhancement f- Restoration/Replacement Ifthe project is for the purpose ofrestoring or enhancing a wetland resource area in addition to the square footage that has been entered in Section 8.2.b or B.3.h above, please entered the additional amount here. a. square feet of BVIV 5.Projects Involves Stream Crossings l- Project Involves Streams Crossings b. square feet of Salt Marsh Page3 of7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, $40 Ifthe project involves Steam Crossings, please enter the number ofnew steam crossings/number ofreplacement steam crossings. a. number ofnew steam crossings b. number ofreplacement steam crossings C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements Streamlined Massachusetts Endangered Species Act/Wetlands Protection Act Review 1. Is any portion of the proposed project located in Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife as indicated on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map of State-Listed Rare Wetland Wildlife published by the Natural Heritage of Endangered Species program G\THESPX ^. 1''' Yss l7 No If yes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery of NOI to: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581 b. Date of map:FROM MAP VIEWER If yes, the project is also subject to Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) review (321 CMR 10' 18).... c. Submit Supplemental Information for Endangered Species Review * (Check boxes as they apply) 1 . i - Percentag el acreage of property to be altered: Provided by MassDEP: MassDEPFile#: eDEP Transaction #: 1 67950 I City/Town:YARMOUTH (a) within Wetland Resource Area (b) outside Resource Area percentage/acreage percentage/aaeage 2.: - Assessot,s Map or right-of-way plan of site 3. i-' project plans for entire project site, including wetland resource areas and areas outside of wetland jurisdiction, showing existing and proposed conditions, existing and proposed tree/vegetation clearing line, and clearly demarcated limits ofwork +* a. i'- Project description (including description ofimpacts outside ofwetland resource area & buffer zone) b. I" Photographs representative ofthe site c.,"" MESA flling fee (fee information available at: ) Make check payable to "Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund" and mail to NHESP at above address Projects altering 70 or more acres ofland, also submit: d. [-- Vegetation cover type map of site e. i- Project plans showing Priority & Estimated Habitat boundaries d. OR Check One of the following 1 I- Project is exempt Aom MEsA review. Attach applicant letter indicating which MESA exemption applies. (See 321 cMR 10.14, species-act.html#10. l4; the NOI must still be sent to NHESP if the project is within estimated habitat pursuant to 310 CMR 10.37 and 10.59.) 2.i-- Separate MESA review ongoing. a. NHESP Tracking Nunber b. Date submitted to NIfESP Page 4 of7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental ProvidedbyMassDEp:protection MassDEpFile#: Bureau of Resource protection _ Wetlands eDEp Traasaction#:1679501 wpA Form 3 - Notice of rntent citv/Town:YARMourH Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, $40 3. l- Separate MESA review completed. Include copy ofNHESP "no Take" determination or vatid Conservation & Management Permit with approved plan. * Some projects not in Estimated Habitat may be located in Priority Habitaq and require NIIESp review... 2. For coastal projects only, is any portion of the proposed project located below the mean high waterline or in a fish run? a.l- Not applicable - project is in inland resowce area only b. ITYes l-No Ifyes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery ofNOI to either South Shore - Cohasset to Rhode Island, and the Cape & Islands: Division ofMarine Fisheries - Southeast Marine Fisheries Station Ath: Environmental Reviewer 836 S. Rodney French Blvd NewBedford, MA0274 North Shore - Hull to New Hampshire: Division ofMarine Fisheries - North Shore Office Ath: Environmental Reviewer 30 EmersonAvenue Gloucester, MA 01930 4 If yes, it may require a Chapter 91 lice,nse. For coastal towns in the Northeast Region, ptease contact MassDEp's Boston Office. For coastal towrs in the Southeast Region, please contact MassDEP's Southeast Regional office. Is any portion of the proposed project within an Area of Critical Environmental Concem (ACEC)? a.l- Yes 17 No Ifyes, provide name ofACEC (see instmctions to WpA Form 3 or DEP Website for ACEC locations). Note: electonic filen click on Website. b. ACEC Name Is any portion of the proposed project within an area designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) as designated in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00? a. i- Yes ,7 No Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order rurder the Inlald Wetlands Restiction Act (M.G.L.g. 131, $ 40A) or the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L.c. 130, g 105X a. lYesFNo Is this project subject to provisions of the MassDEp Stormwater Management Standards? a. i Yes, Attach a copy of the Stormwater Report as required by the Stormwater Management Standards per 3 1 0 CMR 10.05(6xk)-(q) and check if: Applying for Low Impact Development (LID) site design credits (as described in Stormwater Management Handbook Vo1.2, Chapter 3) A portion of the site constifutes redevelopment Proprietary BMPs are included in the Stormwater Management System b.17 No, Explain why the project is exempt: I Singt fu-ilyHome f ' Ern.rg"n.y Road Repair l.r 2.r J.r Page 5 of7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, $40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File#: eDEP Transaction #: I 67950 I City/Town:YARMOUTII l":20' 3. Small Residential Sgbdivision (ess than or equal to 4 singl+family houses or less than or equal to 4 units in multi-farnily l- housing project) with no discharge to Critical Aeas' D. Additional Information Applicants must include the following with this Notice ofkrtent (NOI). See instuctions for details. Online users: Attach the document tansaction nunber (provided on your receipt page) for any of the following information you submit to the Departnent by regular mail delivery. 1. USGS or other map ofthe area (along with a narrative desoiption, if necessary) containing sufficient ffirmation for the 17 Conservation Commission and the Departrnent to locate the site. @lectonic fllers may omit this item) Z. plans identifying the location ofproposed activities (including activities proposed to senre as a Bordering Vegetated Wefland 17 [BW[ replication area or other mitigating measure) relative to the boundaries of each affected resource area- 3. ideotify th" -etlrod for BWV and other resource area boundary delineations (MassDEP BWV Field Data Form(s)' F Determination ofApplicability, Order of Resource Area Delineatioq etc.), and attach docurrentation ofthe methodolory. 4. List the titles and dates for all ptans and other materials submitted with this NOI. F a. Plan Title:b. Plan Prepared By: c. PIan Signed/stamped By: c. Revised Final Date: e. Scale: PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED SHOREFRONT SHOREFRONT CONSI]LTING MODIFICATIONS DANIEL OJALA, P.E., PLS 1113123 If there is more than one property owner, please attach a list of these Property owners not listed on this form. Attach proof of mailing forNatural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, if needed' Attach proof of mailing for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, if needed. Attach NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form. Attach Stormwater Report, if needed. 5. r" 6. T 7. V 8. V 9.r Page 6 of 7 * ELECTROMC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bweau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 - Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, $40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File #: eDEP Transaction # : I 67950 I City/Town:YARMOUTH E. Fees I Fee Exempt. No filing fee shall be assessed for projects ofany city, town, councy, or districr ofthe Commonwealth, federally recognized Indian tribe housing authority, municipal housing authority, or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authoriry Applicants must submit the following information (in addition to pages I and 2 of the NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form) to confirm fee payment: 4 State Check Nwber 7. Payer nme on che ck: Last Nme F. Signatures and Submittal Requirements I hereby certif, under the penalties ofperjurl, that the foregotng Notice ofJntent and accompanying plans, documents, and supporting data are true andcompletetothebestofmyknowledge IunderstandthattheConservationCommissionwill placenotificationofthisNotrceinalocalnewspaper at the expense ofthe applicant in accorda.nce with the wetlands regulations, 310 CMR 10 05(5)(a) Ifurthercertifounderpenaltiesofperjurythatallabutterswerenotifiedofthisapplication,pursuanttotherequirementsofMGL c 131,$40 Notice must be made by Ce(ificate olMailing or in writing by hand delivery or certified rnail (return receipt requested) to all abutters wjthin 100 feet ofthe property line ofthe project Iocation 4 Date zlrl z4 6 Date For Conservation Commission: Two copies of the completed Notice of Intent (Form 3), inctuding supporting plans and documents, two copies of the NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form, and the city/town fee payment, to the Conservation Commission by certified mail or hand delivery For MassDEP: One copy of the completed Notice of Intent (Form 3), including supporting plans and documents, one copy of the NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form, and a copy ofthe state fee payment to the MassDEP Regional Office (see Instructions) by certified mail or hand delivery Other: Ifthe applicant has checked the "yes" box in Section C, Items l-3, above, refel to that section and the Instructions for additional submittal requrrements Theorrginal a:rdcopiesmustbesenlsimultaneously Failurebytheapplicanttosendcopiesinatimelymannermayresultindismissal ofthe Notice oflntent PageT of7 * ELECTRONIC COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 - Notice of Wetland FeeTransmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, $40 JOSEPH AND MEREDITH b.LastName Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File#: oDEP Transaction #: I 679501 City/Town:YARMOUTTI 02474 meridith.zona@stantec.com 02474 meidith.zona@stantec. com YARMOUTH A. Applicant Information l. Applicant: a. FirstName c. Organization d. Mailing Address I ANDREWS V/AY e. CitylTown ARILINGTON f. State MA i. Faxh.PhoneNumber 6178776838 2.Property Owner: (if ditrerent) a. FirstName JOSEPHANDMEREDITH b.LastName c. Organization d.MailingAddress 1 ANDREWSWAY e. Cify/Town ARILINGTON f.State MA h. PhoneNumber 6178776838 i. Fax 3. Project Location: a. Street Address 39 SETH LANE Ale you exempted from Fee? I - (YOU HAVE SELECTED NO) Note: Fee will be exempted ifyou are one of the following: . City/Toum/CountyiDisfict r MunicipalHousurgAuthority o Indian Tribe Housing Authority o MBTA State agencies are only exempt ifthe fee is less than $100 B. Fees Activity Type c.) BEACH NOTTRTSHMENT; A.) WORK ONDOCKS, PIERS, REVETMENTS, DIKES, ETC. (COASTAI OR TNLAND). RFAMULTIPLIER 1.5 810.00 State share offiling fee Total Project Fee $767.s0 $1,s60.00 ZONA g. Zip Code j. Email ZONA g.Zip Code j.Email b. City/Town ActivitY Acdvitv FeeNumber I 500.00 RF Multiplier Sub Total RFAMLILTIPLIER 1.5 75o.oo 400135 CitylTown share of filling fee s792.s0 Page I ofl * ELECTRONIC COPY CONSERVATION OFFICE &dminia ttutiue eft"erfilirt t ZoN+ Arofice o{ Jnrcnt All filings must be made on Town of Yarmouth forms. The filing deadline is two weeks prior to the next scheduled Conservation Commission meeting for new applications. Failure to follow this Checklist shall result in an Administratively lncomplete Application and will not be advertised for a Public Hearing. Refer to the meetino schedule. Contact the Conservation Office if you need assistance. Does the property have any outstanding/expired Orders of Gonditions? lf so, please file a Request Hardcopy filing dropped off or mailed to the Conservation Office including: 1 Administrative Checklist 1 complete NOI application WPA form 3 with original signatures. Typed signatures will not be accepted. etailed narrative of the project including existing & proposed conditions, construction sequence, type of equipment, staging locations, drainage and stormwater, erosion controls, invasive species management and alternative analysis. The narrative shall include how the project meets performance standards per 310 CMR 10.0 & TOY Wetland Requlations, delineation sheets (if BVW or vegetated wetlands are present) or other resource area calculations, and supporting information. 1 100' radius map, current abutters list identifying the property owners who are to be notified per 310 CMR 10.00 and abutter notification form. Abutters list must be certifled by the Town Assessor's office. The Assessor's office requires 7 days advance notice. All abutters must be notifled via certified mail. \ Certified Mait Receipts (PS Form 3800) for all abutters. Green cards to be submitted at the hearing. By-law filing fee: 1 original and 6 copies of the plan, folded separately, right side out with title and project address visible. All plans shall reference NAVD1988 unless othenrvise noted. See plan requirements armouth's share of State filing fee: Separate check made payable to "Town of Yarmouth" (refer to NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form) Separate check made payable to "Town of Yarmouth" Separate check made payable to "Town of Yarmouth"Legal ad fee: Please list project property's street address on checks. Refer to Fee Schedule DEP share of the fee (refer to NOI form) shall be sent to: Dept. of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 Yarmouth Conservation Commission . 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA02664-4492 Tel. (s08)-398 -223L Ext. 1288 Rev 72/2023 Page 7 of 2 DEP Submitta! and Digital filing lf you are filing with MassDEP using eDEP, please include a copy of the submittal confirmation with your application. lf not flling via eDEP, a PDF of your application, plan, and all other supporting information must be sent VIA EMA[L the same day to DEP, Southeast Region at SERO NOI@mass.qov with the subject line in the email per DEP's request listed as "YARMOUTH - NOI - Street Address - Applicant Name" and copied to bdirienzo@varmouth.ma.us. We must receive a copy of this email with the application as proof that it has been submitted to DEP. lFy that all on-site requirements will be completed by noon on the Friday prior to the hearing ll proposed structures must be staked, and all relevant resource areas and buffer zones must be staked or flagged. please consult the yarmouth Wetland Reoulations, page 17. Without proper staking your project may be deemed incomplete and be continued to the next hearing date' lf Applicable .Certified Mail Receipt for Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program \ Certifled Mail Receipt for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. lf filing via email, CC bdi rienzo@varmouth.ma. us Watennray's jurisdiction - Any coastal projects such as, but not limited to, docks, piers, bulkheads, 'revetmenis, dredging and boardwalks shall require submittal of all Notice of lntent, plans and supplemental information to the Town of Yarmouth Watenruays/Shellfish Committee via the Natural Resources office by certified mail or hand delivery. The applicant or his/her representative must provide the Conservation offlce with proof that this has been done or the filing will not be accepted' Other Requirements o Does the proposed project meet the applicable regulations of the Town of Yarmouth Zoning bylaws? Do you need io tite withth6 Yarmouth Board of Appeals? lf so, you must file with ZBA after conservation permitting is comPleted. o lf a vacant lot, have you completed and received a determination for the Building Department for a lot inquiry form? *To view all Conservation files/permits for the property address online, go to www.varmouth.ma.us/LF Yarmouth Conservation Commission . 1145 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA02664'4492 Te l. ( 508)-398 -2231 Ext. 1288 Rev 72/2023 Page 2 of 2 Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZona,3g Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Performance Standards Narrative, Alternatives Analysis, and Construction Protocol Property Description The site is located at 39 Seth Lane in South Dennis, Massachusetts. The property lies on the west shore of Bass River, about 700 feet north of the Route 28 Bass River Bridge. 39 Seth Lane lad an existing dwelling close to the water, with a concrete patio (both recently removed under a separate filing) and currently hai a concrete and stone seawall, with two concrete and stone groins located approximately on the north and south property lines. The site is low; flooding at even nominal storm or monthly high tides. At the time of the inspection, awrack line of debris was located all the way to the landward edge of the parking area, about 90 feet from the seawall. The existing seawall and groins are the focus of this site. The coastal beach extends out from the base of the seawall, but is completely flooded at high tide (no high tide beach). The property has a concrete and rock seawall across most of the property that jogs landward 5 feet at the south end ofthe existing patio, then extends another 30 feet south, leaving a gapof eightee, (18'; feetwide between the seawall and the south groin thSt has no formal protective structure. In this area, the beach extends to the edge of the lawn/parking axea in a fairly uniform slope. The wall is concrete over stone, and it appears that the "*po."I stone is resting on the beach. The area was not probed to determine the depth of the stones. The wall gets less structural as you go south. While there doesn't seem to be signs of shifting, if more beach elevation is lost, it will almost certainly shift seaward. The patio will follow suit with cracking and shifting. There is a rock groin on the south side of the property, approximately on the property line, which extends about 35 feet seaward from the outer section of the seawall (inline with the seaward edge olthe patio). There is some form of structure and rocks along the south property line ending at the landward edge of the driveway/lawn/parking area. The groin is about 3 feet above the beach grade where MHW goes over the top of the stone. There iJalso another rock groin on the north property line, extending about 40 feet seaward from the outer edge of the patio (not the neighbor's fence). This groin is also about 3 feet above the current beach soil where MI{W go"r ou". it. Duiing the inspection at low tide (9:45 AM on l-25-23),there was about a foot of water at the outer ends of both groins. The.e was observed a l-foot deep narrow trench around the outer end of the north groin, indicating some higher current velocity atthat end. The groins are spaced about 88 feet apart. All of the struCtures on the site are licensed by DEp License 4145, issued in 1994. For more details, please refer to the evaluation report conducted by Shorefront Consulting in January, 2023,which is included in this filing. The report states that the groins were properly spaced relative to their length. Project Description The purpose of this project is to remove the concrete and stone seawall that is seaward of the old patio, then regrade with a combination of cut and fill to establish a 10:1 slope to restore more coastal beach and reduce erosion. Approximately 124+l- cubic yards of nourishment is proposed to fill the groins to capacity and to restore their function for downdrift beaches. In addition, it is proposed to remove all of the existing concre-te that is on top of the groins and use the removed stones from the seawall to place them on top of the groins io maintain the cunent height. Any extra stone would be removed from the site. Description of Proposed Work Access for the project will be from the upland. The first task is to remove any shellfish in the area between the two groins and relocate them to the other sides (north and south) of the existing groins. The second task is to remove all the rocks and concrete from the seawall along the shoreline, and temporarily stockpile the stones upland of the wall. The next step is to remove the concrete from on top of the two groins, and replice with suitable stones from the removed seawall' It is assumed that there is enough stones in the seawall to accomplish this task. There will likely be some stones that are too large for the groin, and these will be removed from the site. If for some reason there ii not enough small stones to restore the groin height, then additional stone would be brought in. Next, the beach will be regraded from the top of the slope by first cutting, then filling as you go seaward to-create a 10:1 slope for the beach. Finally, additional beach nourishment will be added to fill the groins to capacity and continue the lb:1 slope. Refer to the project plan attached to this filing. Page 1 of 8 Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZona,3g Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Mean Iligh Water Determination The projeit site is located approximately a 1.8 miles upstream from the mouth of Bass Nver. The site is located directly adlaceni to the main flow of^ttre river. There is some influence from the river current restrictions this far up river. Therefore, the tidal elevations were verified using data from available projects in the neighborhood. Therefore, MHW is at elevation 1.5'NAVD88, and MLW is at elevation -2'NAYD88. Riverfront Area The property is located directly fronting the main flow The Riverfront area buffer zorre is 200 feet. The area of the hard stone seawall structure, and the grading of the area I area; only cutting to establish the 10:1 slope. Thi remaining work is seaward of MHW, and therefore not in the Riverfront atea. s not extend beyond the out from the dock to the north extend transiting the ed by the proposed work navigation of the waterway with regards to this project. Shellftsh Survey A shellfish ,.r.uly was conducted on December 2,2023. The survey indicates shellfish located at the outer ends of the groin just beyond MLW, with only one plot indicating s itretlfistr found in 40 plots. These shellfish are proposed fo assumed that the entire area would be raked to relocate any Alternatives Analysis @iscussion of Options) ue to erode. The existing stone and concrete seawall will e the site gets flooded consistently from highertides, there coastal bank exists), and the groins are not full, indicating e site conditions would continue to degrade and the do nothing option was not chosen. This is why the owners wish to restore the site to a more natural state. Note: since the groins are atthe property lines, moving them is not a consideration. Therefore, the spacing is constant, but tfie length can be looked into for alternatives. The suggested groin spacing, according to the research, suggests that iLe groins should be between 1.5 to 4 times the length ofthe groins. The groins extend roughly 40 feet out from the main-seawall. Therefore, they should be spaced between 60 (1.5:1) and 160 (4:1) apart. At a spacing of 88 feet, they are as opposed to the "too f* upirf' parameter. if the 58 feet long (1'5:1) or as short ai22 feetlong (4: ed 88 feet apart would be about 29 feet long. l) Shorten the North groin up to 10 feet; If the north groin was shortened, it would almost certainly increase the amount of sanJtraveling south; and could ultimately reduce the beach on the abutter's properly to the north. Therefore, since this option could have a potentially negative impact on a neighbor's property, this option is not considered. 2) Shorten the South groin up to 10 feet; If the south groin was shortened, it would allow more sand to pass to the south, likely riucing tfre amount of sand on the 39 Seth Lane property beach area. Sand would still accumulate o, th" north side of the north groin, but it wouldn't be captured as much by the south groin. There is one possible advantage to this option: the marsh to the south of the south groin, on the 33 Seth Lane propefty, is very close to the outer edge of the beach. Some additional sand in this area would protect the ^outer edge of the marsh. Aerial photos don't indicate that the marsh area is declining, but obviously more beach in front of them will provide more protection. If this option was chosen, some nourishment should take place on the 39 Seth Lane property to feed the south beaches. This should be considered carefully, since additional nourishment alone may accomplish the same goal' Page 2 of 8 Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZona,3g Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Note; remember that for more sand to accumulate on the beach, the north groin has to be shortened (not advised). m both groins are shortened, then more sand will accumulate on the beach, but that sand will come from the abutter's beach to the north, potentially lowering their beach. 3) T,ower the height of either groin; If the height of the groins was changed so that the groins still protruded above the current beach height, approximately 3 feet or less, then there would be no effect on the current profiles, because the groins aren't filled. IF they were lowered and then there was a sand source to fill them, the sand would not be contained and would then pass over the lower groins. Therefore, this option is not considered. 4) Extend either groin; This option would reduce the amount of sand accumulated on the 39 Seth Lane beach, and increase the amount of sand on the abutter's beach to the north. This option would "starve" both 33 and 39 Seth Lane beaches, and therefore is not considered. 5) Eliminate either or both groins; If the north groin was eliminated, there would be some buildup of beach on the north side of the patio, but again, the abutter's beach would likely diminish. Ifjust the south groin was eliminated, then the 39 Seth Lane's sand would pass south, benefitting the 33 Seth Lane beach,6ut fikely leaving the 39 Seth Lane beach with much less san< . IF there were no "coastal engineered" structures to the north, and that shoreline was eroding at a normal rate, providing sediment to the littoral system, then this strip of land would be similar to what is observed in the 1938 aerial. The beach is uniform along the entire photo; with no areas that seem less than others. Now that bulkheads and seawalls were constructed north of the site, the whole littoral drift system has been changed, reducing the amount of sediment into the system, and ultimately reducing the beach elevations as well. Eventually all ofthese sites loose their high tide beach, as evidenced on the property to the north. While this is what people do to protect their properties, it is no longer permittable for liouses constructed after August 70,7978. This is to preserve the long shore drift of sediments and maintain beach elevations. Because there are man-made structures to the north, with no apparent increase in sand source available, this option is therefore not considered. 6) Eliminate the seawall and the patio; If this option was chosen, then the site would have more upland beach. The patio would also have to be removed, since the eroding beach would then undermine it. Thi site would be much more aesthetically pleasing as well. The site can be re-graded to match the southern portion of the existing beach, createa bgach areaupland of the seawall, and alongthe entire frontage of thL site. Upper areas could be planted with woody shrubs and beach grass, creatingavegetated bufter strip between the lower "parking lot/lawn" and the beach. Careful consideration should be made because once this option is chosen, because there's no going back. The only option to maintain the beach would be periodic beach nourishment. The conservation c-ommission might be opposed to this option, or only allow it once over time. This option does not change the littoral drift system or rate of erosion; it will, however, create a coastal beach where none exists now. Consideration must also be made as to the type of plantings proposed; the plants have to be able to withstand high tide inundation by salt water. There are several plants available such as beach grass, Spartina patens, Sei Cucumber, and Heather. These are all plants that live in a salt marsh transition zone thit gets periodically inundated with salt water. This option can be considered, but with the caveats mentioned ubo1,". 7) Nourish the beach area but leave everything else unchanged; This option would put the beach back on the site without affecting any surrounding properties. Since there wouldb" u ne* soltrce of sediment, it can be assumed that the beach sediments will travel south, lowering the beach over time. The conservation commission might be opposed to this option, or only allow it once over time. There is no disadvantage to this option because everything else remains the same. Therefore, this option can be considered, as loig as the commission will allow it. Page 3 of 8 Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZona,3g Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth g) Eliminate the stones on the south properly line; This option was discussed during the site inspection with the owners. This only pertains to the narrow section of stone on the upland, starting at the edge of the grass parking area andproceeding west to the there to prevent waves frorn impactlng the lawn/ ving the stones would increase ihe potential for wave en periodic occurence. More frequent Jtorms would certainly have more impact, likely requiring some restoration. More salt tolerant plantings could be substituted for the rocks, both increasing vegetation, habitat and storm resiliency. ttoweverlthere's no substitution for the rocks. While this option can be considered, the long term impacts must also be considered. 9) Remove all the concrete from all is speculated to be installed either to provide more pr at the same time to provide a"cap". As uncertain ai the origin of the f the concrete was iemoved, leaving the remaining stone in place, there would be a slight lessening of the storm resiliency because tt " t "igit would be loiered. However, IF the stones are removed along the south pro-pefi line as discussed above-, then these stones could be installed over the existing stones to be a substitute for the rocks' This could happen for the groins alone, or include the seawall if it remains. Therefore this option can be considered. 10) prefened option, project as proposed. The project was designed around restoring the beach area to a more natural state by.L.orirg existing hard stnrctures. The existing groins are functioning properly andjust need some additional nourishment to fill them to a more stable slope angle and to provide some source for the downstream beach. The concrete removal will enhance the natural look for the site, and no concrete will remain. Tampering with the length of the groins seems problematic at best, so leaving them alone and just supplying th" no*]sh-ent provides the benefit of a more natural site, a more stable slope, and is aesthetically moie pleasing. Therefo.", ?h" project as proposed provides the greatest benefits with the least amount of risk, and is the chosen option for this project. Performance Standards The project proposes the removal ofhard structures on beach, and nourishment to provide sediment to downd include Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, Coastal Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (L CMR 10' section 10.02 (1i d. The area from the existlng b and therefore no coastal bank exists. There is an"artifiiial the waterfront is still within LSCSF, so it will be treated as such. The area i I Storm Flowage' Although LSCSF is an area that is allowed protection un there are no performance standards for this area. The work proposedln LSCSF is ation' That work will not have any significant adverse impacts, and can be permitt The yarmouth Wetlands protection Regulations, section 4.10 (3) a (i-viii), have ttre following performance standards land to absorb and contain flood waters. . ii. increasing the elevation or velocity of flood waters, or flows or causing channelization, in each case at the proje no increase in the elevation of the land. providing a more gradual slope for flood waters. Page 4 of 8 Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZona,39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth iii. displacing or diverting flood waters to other properties or resource areas. Fences and privacy walls, including walls separating one properly from another, may obstruct or divert flood flow and waves toward buildings and protected areas. Solid fences (stockade and similar) must be constructed with 6 inches of clearance below to allow the passage of floodwaters and wildlife; No change because the groins are not being altered. iv. causing, or creating the likelihood of damage to other structures on land within the flood plain as debris (collateral damage); No change. v. causing ground, surface or saltate pollution triggered by coastal storm flowage; No change. vi. reducing the ability of the resource to serye as a wildlife habitat and migration corridor through activities such as, but not limited to the removal of substantial vegetative cover and/or installation of fencing and other structures which prevent wildlife migration across property. No change. vii. prevention of the migration of resource areas such as salt marshes due to sea level rise. No change. viii. If flood control and storm damage protection functions have already been impaired, redevelopment must improve existing conditions by reducing impervious surfaces, restoring flood control and storm damage protection functions, installing native plantings, or by restoring or creating other wetland resource areas. No change. The project, as proposed, has no adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.10 (3) a (i-viii). Coastal Beach - The area of coastal beach extends across the entire waterfront, and covers most of the nourishment area. Beach nourishment will be performed using as small equipment as possible to place the sand on the beach. An Excavator can likely reach all of the beach, which would avoid any heavy equipment on the beach and avoid the compaction of sediments. Under the Yarmouth Wetlands protection regulations (12111123), section 4.02,3(a-f; the project as proposed does not affect the ability of waves to remove sediment from the beach (waves are not prevented from reaching the shoreline), will not disturb the vegetative cover (there is none), cause any modification of the beach or downdrift beach (it will only enhance them) that would increase the potential for storm of flood damage, interfere with the natural movement of the beach, or cause artificial removal of sand from the beach. Accordingly, there is no seaweed in this location proposed for removal. The construction will not change the role for the beach in storm damage prevention, flood control, or protection of wildlife habitat. The project will also not change the ability of the beach to respond to wave action, or have any negative effect for any downdrift beach. The project, as designed will have no adverse impacts to the coastal beach, and therefore meets the performance standards for work on a Coastal Beach. Therefore, the project as proposed can be permitted under 310 CMR 10.27 (l) through (7), andthe Yarmouth Wetland Protection Regulations, section 4.05 (3) a-f. Land Containing Shellfish; 310 CMR 10.34; Projects within Land Containing Shellfish shall not adversely affect such land or marine fisheries by a change in the productivity of such land caused by: (a) alterations of water circulation; The project does not change water circulation. (b) alterations in relief elevation; The project does not change relief elevation. (c) the compacting of sediment by vehicular traffic; Not applicable. (d) alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size; The project will use compatible nourishment material. (e) alterations in natural drainage from adjacent land; or no alterations in drainage. (f) changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the levels of salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants. The project does not change the water quality. Page 5 of 8 Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZona,3g Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth (5)Notwithstandingtheprovisionsof 310CMR 10.34(4), havean udr..r" effect on shellfish productivity but which do not p itatmay be permitted if the land "ontuiring shellfish can and will b ts former productivity in less than one year from the commencement of work, unless an extension of the brder of Conditions is granted, in which case such restoration shall be completed within one year of such extension. The[roject does will not change shellfish habitat and shellfish are expected to return naturally. (6) In the case of land containing shellfish defined as significant in 310 CMR 10.34(3)(b) (r.e., thor. u."u, identified on the basis of maps and designations of the Shellfish Constable), except in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, the issuing authority may, after consultation with the Shellfish Constable, permit the shellfish to be moved from such area under the guidelines of, and to a suitable location approved by, the Division of Marine Fisheries, in order to permit a (7) Notwithstanding 310 CMR 10.34(4) through (6), projects approved by the Division of Marine Fisheries that are specifically intended to increase the productivity of land containing shellfish may be permitted. Aquaculture projects approved by the appropriate local and state authority may also be permitted. The project will not negatively irnpact the shellfish liabitat. (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of 310 CMR 10.34(4) through (7), no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat of rare vertebrate invertebrate species, as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.37 . ot applicable. For the Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, Section a.08 (3a-f, 4, and 5); projects located in Land Containing Shellfish shall not adversely affect such land or marine fisheries by a change in the productivity of such land caused by: (a) alterations in water circulation; (b) alteration in relief elevation; (c) the compacting of sediment by vehicular traffic; (d) alterations in the distribution of sediment grain size; (e) alterations in natural drainage from adjacent land, or (f) changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuati,ons in the levels of salinity, dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants. Refer to previotts cot]rtnet.tts for a-f. (4) The Conservation r consultation with the sh permit shellfish to be area under the guidelines iuitable location appr ion of Marine Fisheries, ( permit a proposed project on such land. Any such project shall not be after the 11ouirg and ieplanting of the affected shellfish has been completed. Refer to construtction protocols. (5) Notwithstanding section 4.08, (3), projects approved by said D.M.F. that are specifically intended to increase the productivity of land permitted at the discretion of the Conservation Commiss Therefore, the project as proposed can be approved under the DEP wetlands protection act, section 310 CMR 1O.34,and the Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations under sections 4.08 (3a-f,4, and 5)' Land Under the Ocean- The area beyond MLW is land under the ocean. The proposed work in this area is limited to the beach nourishment. The nourishment serves to enhance the beach area and the area seaward of MLW by providing a more stable environment that should be less subject to erosion. Page 6 of 8 Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZona,39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth Projects not included in 310 CMR 10.25(3) which affect land under the ocean shall if water-dependent, be designed and constructed, using best available measures, so as to minimize adverse effects, and if non-witer-dependenq Lave no adverse effects, on marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat caused by alterations in watei circulation, destruction of eelgrass (Zostera marina) or widgeon grass (Rupia maritina) beds, distribution of grain size, changes in water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants; or alterations of shallow submerged lands with high densities of polychaetes, mollusks or macrophytic algae. The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse efflects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with 3 10 cMR 10.2s (6). The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.01(3) a-g, have the following performance standards to consider. The project is designed to minimize adverse effects caused by changes in: (a) Bottom topography which will result in increased flooding or erosion caused by an increase in the height or velocity of waves impacting the shore; The project does not increase flooding or erosion. (b) Sediment transport processes which will increase flood or erosion hazards by affecting the natural replenishment of beaches; The project will improve the sediment transport process because the groins will be filled, allowing sediments to traverse along the beach naturally. (c) Water circulation which will result in an adverse change in flushing rate, temperature, or turbidity levels; or The project will not change these parameters. (d) Marine productivity which will result from the suspension or transport of pollutants, the smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of habitat or nutrient source areas. The project will relocate any shellfish prior to the nourishrnent, at the direction of the Natural Resources Director, and will not result in the srnothering of bottom organisms, or the destruction of habitat. (e) Maintenance dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the ocean shall be carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize adverse effects caused by changes in marine productivity which will result from the suspension or transport of pollutants, increases in turbidity, the smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by organisms, or the destruction of habitat or nutrient source areas. The project does not propose any dredging, (f) Projects not included in section 4.01, (a through e) which affect nearshore areas of land under the ocean shall not cause adverse effects by altering the bottom topography so as to increase storm damage or erosion ofcoastal beaches, coastal banks, coastal dunes, or salt marshes. The beach re-grading and nourishment will reduce erosion and will not cause negative impacts to the coastal beach. (g) Projects not included in section 4.01, (athrough c) which affect land under the ocean shall be designed and performed so as to cause no adverse effects on wildlife, marine fisheries or shellfisheries caused by: i. Alterations in water circulation; The project does not alter water circulation. ii. Destruction of eelgrass beds (Zosteramarina); Not applicable; no eelgrass at the site. The project, as proposed, has no significant adverse effects, and therefore can be conducted and permitted to minimize adverse effects to the listed interests in accordance with The Yarmouth Wetlands Protection Regulations, section 4.01(3) a-g. PageT of Notice of Intent Joseph and MeredithZota,3g Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL The staging area for materials will be on the applicant's property and driveway. The work area shall be kept to a minimum. A small excavator is required to remove the stones and concrete, and relocate the small stones along the top of the groins. All these areas can be reached from the upland without putting equipment on the beach. Worse caie would be a small Bobcat to spread the sand from the land over the existing beach, working seaward. All material removed from the area shall be properly disposed of. If any new stones are required, then can be offloaded in the existing driveway and placed by excavator from the upland. All concrete and debris shall be removed an disposed of properly. Nourishment protocol: All shellfish stralt be removed from the beach area and relocated north and south of the existing groins prior to placing the nourishment. The yarmouth Department of Natural Resources shall be notified prior to the shellfish relocation for any additional instructions. All nourishment shall be performed outside of any time of year (TOY) restrictions. Material to be compatible with existing sediments. has less fines to leach into the water. Pre-Construction Meeting prior to construction, u pri-.orrtruction meeting shall be held on-site with the Contractor, Property Owner (or owner,s representative), and the Conservation Commission and/or agent. The purpose of the meeting is to clearly delineate the limits of work and access, as well as the stagin g area. The Contractor will describe the proposed means and methods for performing the work within the requirements of the plans, order of conditions and construction protocol. The Contractor will comply with mitigation measures as established by the Conservation Commission. To be discussed at this meeting: o Existing property conditions, necessary precautions to be taken by the Contractor; o Means and methods for construction; o Means and methods for siltation controls; o Necessarypost-constructionreparations and conditions; o Procedureforpost-constructioninspection;o Shorefront Consulting's responsibilities for inspection and project coordination During Construction, the site shall be accessible for inspection during reasonable hours by all parties, members of the conservation commission and their agents, and the Project Manger. Post-construction meeting Upon completion of construction, a post-construction m with the Co Owner (orbwner's representative), and the Conservation The purpose to determine that the project has been satisfactorily comp permits, and work or mitigation is required by the Contractor. Restoration of project area Upon completioir ofconstruction, the staging areas, vegetated areas, and any other areas disturbed by the construction effort shall be returned as much as practical to their pre-construction conditions to the satisfaction of the property owner and conservation agent. All disturbed vegetated areas shall be re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation to match pre-construction conditions for the surrounding areas, or as determined during the pre-construction meeting. Page 8 of 8 Shorefront Consulting Professional Services on Land or At Sea 290 Center St., Dennis Port, MA 02639 www.shorefrontconsulting.com 508-280-8046 shorefrontconsulting@gmail. com Joseph and Meredith Zona 1 Andrews Way, Arlington, MA 02474 RE: Shorefront Evaluation Report Existing Groins, Seawall, and Shoreline 33 and 39 Seth Lane South Yarmouth, MA January 26,2023 Report goals: It is the intention of Shorefront Consulting to provide a professional evaluation and opinion, with recommendations for the property as outlined at the end of this report. The purpose of this report is to inform the property owners of the existing shorefront conditions which were observed during the inspection, and provide the basic regulatory guidelines and the risks associated with changing or eliminating the existing shoreline structures. This report should only be used as a guide by the property owner to assess existing conditions at the site, and the chances of achieving the desired result. This report in no way guarantees the prope(y owner success in the final outcome of any proposed project. Site information: The site is located at33 and 39 Seth Lane in South Dennis, Massachusetts. The property lies on the west shore of Bass River, about 700 feet north of the Route 28 Bass River Bridge. 33 Seth Lane is a vacant lot with coastal beach and salt marsh. 39 Seth Lane has an existing dwelling close to the water, with a concrete patio and concrete and stone seawall, with t'wo concrete and stone groins located approximately on the north and south property lines. The site is low; flooding at even nominal storm or monthly high tides. At the time of the inspection, a wrack line of debris was located all the way to the landward edge of the parkilg are4 about 90 feet from the seawall. The existing seawall and groins are the focus of this evaluation. The coastal beach extends out from the base of the seawall, but is completely flooded at high tide (no high tide beach). The adjacent property to the north has a seawall, dock, and marine railway. The railway no longer extends into the water. The dock is existing, permitted n2002 (SE83-1605). The relocated seawall was also permitted n 2002, but only to move it 5 feet seaward. The date of the original concrete seawall is unknown, but the narrative for the project stated that the site has been developed for more than 100 years. The 1973 aerial shows avery faint straight line, which could be the seawall. It also shows a line in the middle of the property which could be the dock that was licensed in 1938. A copy ofthat license is attached to this report. The license actually states that the salt marsh is to be removed south of the dock and filled to create a beach. There was no conservation at this time, so this is the only permit for the dock and marsh work. The l97l aerial shows the seawall more clearly. Refer to the aerials on the next page. 39 Seth Lane has a concrete and rock seawall across most of the property that jogs landward 5 feet at the south end of the existing patio, then extends another 30 feet south, leaving a gap of eighteen (18') feet wide between the seawall and the south groin that has no formal protective structure. In this area, the beach extends to the edge of the lawn/parking area in afarly uniform slope. The wall is concrete over stone, and it appears that the exposed stone is resting on the beach. The area was not probed to determine the depth of the stones. The wall gets less structural as you go south. While there doesn't seem to be signs of shifting, if more beach elevation is lost, it will almost certainly shift seaward. The patio will follow suit with cracking and shifting. There is a rock groin on the south side of the property, approximately on the property line, which extends about 35 feet seaward from the outer section of the seawall (inline with the seaward edge of the patio). There is some form of structure and rocks along the south prope(y line ending at the landward edge of the driveway/lawn/parking area. The groin is about 3 feet above the beach grade where MHW goes over the top of the stone. Shorefront - There is also another rock groin on the north property line, extending about 40 feet seaward from the outer edge of the patio (not the nelghbor's fence). This groin is also about 3 feet above the current beach soil where VfffW goes over ii. Ouring the inspection at low tide 9:45 on l-25-23), there was about a foot of water at the outer eids ofboth groins. There was observed a l-foot deep narrow trench around the outer end ofthe north groin, indicating some higher current velocity at that end. The groins are spaced about 88 feet apart. q { ,+n . 1938 Aerial The 1938 Aerial appears to show the dock that was licensed in 1938 (License #1945). While this license has no expiration date, if the dock was damaged or removed and not replaced within 5 years, the dock is considered "abandoned", and a new permit would have to be sought under the current regulations. In addition, the groins do not seem apparent in this photo. The license approved the elimination of salt marsh to create a be,ich, so perhaps the groins were installed at some other point in time, and then not licensed until 1994 (License i+t+S)where the license is valid for 99 years. The "beach" south ofthe dock appears visible as well, leading to the question of when the work was actually done in relation to the license. rf ,+4 I t Page2 of 9 I IT l97l Aerial In the l97L aerial, both the dock and the groins are visible, as well as the beach on both sides of the dock. There seems to be a lot of beach to the north, even though the block seawall appears to be visible as well. Page 3 of9 *i t 1973 Aeriat The 1973 aerial also shows the groins and the dock. There seems to be plenty of beach to the north, and you can observe a straight line where the concrete block wall is located. Aerial Photo Analysis: Aerial photos (Historicaerials.com and Google Earth) were reviewed to see which photos were first clear, and then possibly taken at a low or lower tide. Consideration was also given to obtain photos that were taken at approximately the same time of year. Three historic photos are used to try to gain a sense of the site conditioni in 1938 and the early 70's, but they are very grainy and difficult to make close observations. Both groins, the seawall, and the concrete seawall to the north are visible in the early photos, as well as the possible remains of the dock approved in 1938. Overall, the beach has been relatively stable over time. The adjacent beaches were also reviewed to see if there was a trend in the amount of sand on them. Overall, thire is a slight reduction in the sand volume over time, which is to be expected. While the groins appear to be full and almost buried in the 70's, they are clearly exposed with the beach volumes changing slightly over time. .t Page 4 of 9 F It is important to note that the direction of littoral drift for the sediments is predominantly from north to south. This is evidenced by the fact that there is more beach on the north side of the groins than the south side of them. This indicates accretion on the north side, with the sand moving south and eroding on the south side ofthe adjacent groin and building up on the north side ofthe south adjacent groin. This is typical. There can also be short term reversals in the drift direction, such as caused by a storm winds coming up Bass River. This would accumulate sand on the northwest corner of the south side of the groins. While there is some sand in those locations, over time, it can be observed that there is somewhat less sand on the north side of the groins, and ultimately the beach area appears less as well. It is fortunate that the area used for the current beach access is on the south side of the two groins. This is where the beach will be most stable, as long as sand can accumulate and remain there. If the beach starts to diminish to an unacceptable point, it may be possible to get a permit for beach nourishment. However, the current conservation commission thoroughly scrutinizes any beach nourishment project in the river to avoid filling in the river. Another aspect of the photos to consider is the marsh property south at 33 Seth Lane. Again, the aerial photos suggest that this area remains the same over time. If you look at the October aerials, you'll see a lot of vegetation, while the spring and early summer photos still look a little brown. This is because the marsh is growing back, like it does every season, and is usually in its best condition around July. Late July and August are usually too hot for additional marsh growth, so the pictures show the marsh in its best condition at the end ofthe season, and visa versa. Considerations: The focus of this report is to evaluate what changes, if any, might be made to ttre shorefront structures to make the shoreline more "natural", while maintaining the beach elevations to useable condition. One must also consider the impacts to the neighboring properties if any changes are made. In general, lengthening the groins will cause more sand to accumulate on the north side of them, while starving the downstream side of sand. This assumes there is still a source of sand from the north, since the concrete seawall to the north is preventing the shoreline from eroding and therefore not presenting additional sand into the littoral system. Shortening the groins will almost certainly increase the littoral drift, but without a sediment source, the beaches will erode as the sand travels downstream (towards the Bass River Bridge). Either of these changes can have a significant impact on the adjacent properties. Consideration is also given to the porosity of the groins (how well sand travels through them without traveling around the end of them), the height, and of course the spacing. Shorefront Evaluation: Beach; In general, the site is in good condition as far as the beach is concerned. While there is not much high tide beach, the area is quite useable at most tides. Even ifthe groins were altered to some degree, there doesn't seem to be enough of a sand source from the north to increase the beach level at this time. If there is more beach desired, then it is likely that some sort of beach nourishment must occur. Groins; The rock groins are also in good shape, showing little signs of stones being dislodged by storm waves. The groins were not probed to see how deep the stones are installed. If the stones are at beach level, the stones would drop with the beach. Then if the beach rose, of course the stones would not rise. Groins are built with a downward taper as they go seaward. The groins appearto be fairly "permeable", because the sand level is not appreciably less on one side than the other, and the sand is not completely filling the groins to the top. This could also be because of a lack of a sand source to fill the groin. At the end of the groins the sand elevation seems to be about the same; about a foot deep of water at the time of observation, with the exception of a small "trench" around the seaward end of the north groin. This is not visible in pictures and has io be viewed at low tide to see the trench. This is likely because the sand elevation further out from the end of the groin is higher, causing the outgoing tide to seek lower ground around the end of the groin to escape. For now, the beach seems to be about a foot lower from the upstream side to the downstream side. This could also be a function of the separation between the two groins. If they are spaced too close together, the sand bypassing the groins doesn't make it back to the beach, and passes through and around theieaward end of the groins. This will also happen if the groins extend too far into the waterway. In addition, since the groin elevations go below the MHW line, sand could pass over the groins when there is sand suspended i, tfre water, such as in a storm, or a high tide with a lot of wind. Page 5 of9 Concrete/stone seawall: The concrete capped seawall is still in a stable state; but if the beach continues to erode, it will become undermined and then start to lean forward. The area to the north of the patio is already eroding from overtopping. Repairing it will likely mean reconstructing it, because to move it back means excavating behind it, pulling it back, and anchoring it. The wall will likely crack more during this process. While the wall is ugly, it is protecting the shoreline from erosion. Repeated overtopping will cause soil to erode from behind the wall, and then under it. If it's removed, then the area will erode, introducing more sediment into the system until the area stabilizes. Alternatives To Consider: Note: since the groins are at the property lines, moving them is not a consideration. Therefore, the spacing is constant, but the length can be looked into for alternatives. The suggested groin spacing, Jccording to the research, suggests that the groins should be between 1.5 to 4 times the length of the groins' The groins extend roughly 40 feet out from the main seawall. Therefore, they should be spaced between 60 (1.5:1) and 160 (4:1) apart. At a spacing of 88 feet, they are spaced at aratio of about 2.2:1, closet to the "too close" parameter as opposed to the "too far apart'parameter. If the ratios are used, then the groins as currently spaced, could be up to 58 feet long (1.5:1) or as short as22feet long (4:1). If we pickthe 3:1 ratio as an average, then groins that are spaced 88 feet apart would be about 29 feet long. 1) Shorten the North groin up to 10 feet; If the north groin was shortened, it would almost certainly increase the amount of sand traveling south; and could ultimately reduce the beach on the abutter's property to the north. Therefore, since this option could have a potentially negative impact on a neighbor's property, this option is not considered. 2) Shorten the South groin up to 10 feet; If the south groin was shortened, it would allow more sand to pass to the south, likely reducing the amount of sand on the 39 Seth Lane properly beach area. Sand would still accumulate on the north side of the north groin, but it wouldn't be capfured as much by the south groin. There is one possible advantage to this option: the marsh to the south of the south groin, on the 33 Seth Lane properly, is very close to the outer edge of the beach. Some additional Jand in this area would protect the outer edge of the marsh. Aerial photos don't indicate that the marsh area is declining, but obviously more beach in front of them will provide more protection. If this option was choien, some nourishment should take place on the 39 Seth Lane property to feed the south beaches. This should be considered carefully, since additional nourishment alone may accomplish the same goal. Note; remember that for more sand to accumulate on the beach, the north groin has to be shortened (not advised). Itr, both groins are shortened, then more sand will accumulate on the beach, but that sand will come from the abutter's beach to the north, potentially lowering their beach. Lower the height of either groin; If the height of the groins was changed so that the groins still protruded abovi the current beach height, approximately 3 feet or less, then there would be no effect bn the current profiles, because the groins aren't filled. IF they were lowered and then there was a sand source to hll them, the sand would not be contained and would then pass over the lower groins. Therefore, this option is not considered. Extend either groin; This option would reduce the amount of sand accumulated on the 39 Seth Lane beach, and inciease the amount of sand on the abutter's beach to the north. This option would "starve" both 33 and 39 Seth Lane beaches, and therefore is not considered. Eliminate either or both groins; If the north groin was eliminated, there would be some buildup of beach on the north side of the patio, but agair^,the abutter's beach would likely diminish. Ifjust the south groin was eliminated, then the 39 Seth Lane's sand would pass south, benefitting the 33 Seth Lane beach, but likely leaving the 39 Seth Lane beach with much less sand. 3) 4) s) Page 6 of9 6) IF there were no "coastal engineered" structures to the north, and that shoreline was eroding at a normal rate, providing sediment to the littoral system, then this ship of land would be similar to what is observed in the 1938 aerial. The beach is uniform along the entire photo; with no areas that seem less than others. Now that bulkheads and seawalls were constructed north of the site, the whole littoral drift system has been changed, reducing the amount of sediment into the system, and ultimately reducing the beach elevations as well. Eventually all of these sites loose their high tide beach, as evidenced on the property to the north. While this is what people do to protect their properties, it is no longer permittable for houses constructed after August 10, 1978. This is to preserve the long shore drift of sediments and maintain beach elevations. Because there are man-made structures to the north, with no apparent increase in sand source available, this option is therefore not considered. Eliminate the seawall and the patio; If this option was chosen, then the site would have more upland beach. The patio would also have to be removed, since the eroding beach would then undermine it. The site would be much more aesthetically pleasing as well. The site can be re-graded to match the southern portion of the existing beach, create a beach area upland of the seawall, and along the entire frontage of the site. Upper areas could be planted with woody shrubs and beach grass, creating a vegetated buffer strip between the lower "parking lot/lawn" and the beach. Careful consideration should be made because once this option is chosen, because there's no going back. The only option to maintain the beach would be periodic beach nourishment. This option does not change the littoral drift system or rate of erosion; it will, however, create more coastal beach where none exists now. Consideration must also be made as to the type of plantings proposed; the plants have to be able to withstand high tide inundation by salt water. There are several plants available such as beach grass, Spartina Patens, Sea Cucumber, and Heather. These are all plants that live in a salt marsh transition zone that gets periodically inundated with salt water. This option can be considered, but with the caveats mentioned above. Nourish the beach area but leave everything else unchanged; This option would put the beach back on the site without affecting any surounding properties. Since there would be a new source of sediment, it can be assumed that the beach sediments will travel south, lowering the beach over time. There is no disadvantage to this option because everything else remains the same. Therefore, this option can be considered. Eliminate the stones on the south property line; This option was discussed during the site inspection with the owners. This only pertains to the narrow section of stone on the upland, starting at the edge of the grass parkin g area and proceeding west to the bottom of the wooded slope. The stones were likely put there to prevent waves from impacting the lawn/driveway area during high tides and storm surges. Removing the stones would increase the potential for wave energy to impact the site, but hopefully only on a periodic occurence. More frequent storms would certainly have more impact, likely requiring some restoration. More salt tolerant plantings could be substituted for the rocks, both increasing vegetation, habitat and storm resiliency. However, there's no substitution for the rocks. While this option can be considered, the long term impacts must also be considered. Remove all the concrete from all of the structures and leave ttre stone; The concrete is speculated to be installed either to provide more protection after the stones were placed, or perhaps done at the same time to provide a"cap". As uncertain as the origin of the concrete is, it is certainly unsightly. If the concrete was removed, leaving the remaining stone in place, there would be a slight lessening of the storm resiliency because the height would be lowered. However, IF the stones are removed along the south property line as discussed above, then ttrese stones could be installed over the existing stones to be a substitute for the rocks. This could happen for the groins alone, or include the seawall if it remains. Therefore this option can be considered. t) 8) e) PageT of9 Results and Recommendations: Overall, the site is stable, but with less beach than in the 70's. This is to be expected because of the introduction of shorefront structures that prevent erosion and the sediment supply needed to keep shorelines stable. The groins are in good condition, and appear to be functioning properly, albeit with less available sediment. It is likely that the stones were concreted over down to the beach line that existed at the time. The concrete ended at the stones, and now the stones are exposed. The retaining wall is in the early stages of minor collapse due to the lowered beach elevation in front of it; and the patio will follow soon if more sand is lost. The overlying concern is what can be done to improve the site without introducing more risk. It is the opinion of Shorefront Consulting that nourishment is the only effort ttrat will maintain the beach and not effect the neighbor to the north. If the owners are willing to remove the seawall and the patio, then the area behind the seawall can be allowed to erode and naturalize, and perhaps adding some sand at the same time, which will benefitthe downdrift beach/marsh at#33 Seth Lane. The concrete caps can be removed from the groins, and the stones from the seawall can be used to make up the difference on the groins so that no elevation is lost. Reducing the length of the southern groin should NOT be done if the seawall is removed; you want to keep as much sand on the site as possible. Since the groins are within design tolerances for length versus the separation distance ratio, they are satisfactory where they are' As described in items I and2, any shortening of either groin will allow more sand to pass, and reduce the ability of the beach to hold sand. Therefore, Shorefront Consulting does not recommend shortening of either groin. This recommendation takes into account your desires to do something with the site to make it more natural, knowing that the new house will be out of harms way. The best approach may be to eliminate the seawall, patio, concrete caps on both groins, using the removed stones to restore the height of the groins to their original capped height. Nourishment should be part of this project as well in order to compensate for the increased risk of erosion. The beach nourishment can utilize a "trigger point" agreed upon with the commission, so that nourishment is only provided after the beach drops to a specified elevation. Then a specified amount of nourishment is added to reitore the beach. Using this combination of options, with the consequences of each of these decisions weighed separately and together as a unit, it may provide the owners with a more naturalized appearance of the beach front, while reducing the risk of significant changes to it. It may be possible to place monitoring conditions in the order so that if the site changes dramatically, you have the option of correcting the situation. Once the seawall is removed, it probably is not possible to put it back; but you should be able to maintain the new shoreline to some degree. Again, there will be some negotiation here with the commission, but removing hard structures from the shoreline will go a long, long way with them, and it would be hoped that you would get some cooperation in refurn. In this case, the "do nothing" option leaves the site ugly and not natural, so it can be assumed that improvements are quite possible. Permitting Concerns: As previously stated, any work in the resourc e areawill require a Notice of Intent and a plan for the proposed work. While the commission would be very supportive of removing the patio and retaining wall, it may not be supportive of repeated beach nourishment efforts. This can be vetted out during the permitting process. The b-Jach nourishment should benefit the downdrift beach and thereby provide some additional protection for the existing salt marsh. That may help negotiations as well. Moving forward: If you decide to implement any of the options described in this report, please contact me to discuss. A plan has to be developed, and the fulI consequences need to be fully understood before proceeding. Shorefront Consulting can provide services to manage the project through permitting, construction, and close-out. Page 8 of9 Thank you for the opportunity to consult with you on your project. Please contact me immediately with any questions you may have. Respectfully submitted, Mark Burgess Shorefront Consulting B.S. Ocean Engineering Page 9 of9 John Lowell P. O Box 501 South Dennis, MA 02660 December 212023 TO: Conservation Commission FROM: John Lowell SUBJECT: Shellfish Survey, 39 SETH LANE sourH yARMourH MA SURVEY DATE: 1212123 CREDENTIALS AND EXPERIENCE of SURVEYOR: o Shellfishing is the surveyor's fi.rll time occupation, and he has been shellfishing on Cape Cod since 1983o Has held commercial and family licenses since the mid-90,so Aquaculture permit since 2003o Interstate Wholesale Dealer license since 2006o Shellfish committee member for Town of Dennis since 2004o Shellfish suweys and relays for the Town of Dennis since 2006 John Lowell P. O Box 501 South Dennis, MA 02660 SITE LOCATION: 39 SETH LANE SOUTH YARMOUTH MA DATE: l2l2l23 TIDE:Low, going WEATHER: 45 degrees, sunny low tide 10:03 am .05 SITE CONDITIONS The site consists of an existing concrete seawall from the top of the coastal bank down to approx. l, to 2, below MHW. No eeigrass was observed. The bottom is beach sand with a few stones. There are two existing jetti.r *ith oysters and rock weed attached. A modest quatrog population was encountered at approximately 40'into the channel and beyond. This corresponds with a drop offand increasing dePth. TECHNIQUE SUBTIDAL 40 sample plots were established 10' apart laterally and 10' apart heading out from the bottom of the wali. TLe samples were achieved using all2" standard quahog rake. I dN o ./l IJ.JzoF1/l (/l IJ.JzoFtt) O (,d o O o o LL -Q o o o o L!o -(J o o o (Y) N N NFI IJ.J &.)(a IIu-J -JLIJ I.n -Ffo E -Flo|t) IJJz J IF LIJVI O) CN FU LUtr)z e.F o dN zJ -U o o o (J o o o o zJ co Lrl LIJ2oFv) zJ d O O O -rl (,z Jo LU LIJvl (9o Iofd llo l-!J IJ.Jv) dN -(J o o o o lJ-l:z E, IJ.JFtt) o il o JJ IJ.J-U1o LIJo il \Z L) -t11 t_tJzoFq, E.E LIJ-(J il -(J (9o- =d ild }Z(J IJJz LUJ E J ilzJ ItFo -Jo- o+oco oN Orl o ARCEL 49 CHRISTOPHER S \31 2\ PROPOSTD CUT\ NOURISHMENT AREA 4,728t SQ. FT. 122+ YDS .\ -3 SHELLFISH SUR VEY PLAN O Shellfish Found ln Grid eg q Z)NA: 39 SETH LANE. S. YARM)UTH ':' f,i! ,,7 II i (. t -,C 1"=20' JlI z Existing lower yard looking landward Existing lower yard looking south easterly lla,uE Existing lower yard looking east -Existing north groin; concrete cap to be removed =L!*&dE* t: !_EreerE Eir{E*.ElII ng south groin; concrete cap to be removed) Joseph and MeredithZona;39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth; Map 61, Parcel 54 (photos taken ll25l23) Existing north groin; concrete cap and wall to be removed Existing beach fronting seawall looking northerly I Existing beach area looking upriver Existing north groin looking downriver with seawall to be removed Existing beach area looking downriver Joseph and MeredithZona;39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth; Map 61, Parcel 54 (photos taken ll25l23) Existing beach area looking northerly ,t Existing lower yard flooded in February 10,2020 Joseph and MeredithZona;39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth; Map 61, Parcel 54 (photos taken ll25l23) Existing lower yard flooded in February 10,2020 t [-JF.€- Existing beach area south ofsouth groin Existing south groin and beach area south ofgroin Existing south groin and beach area south ofgroin Existing shoreline north of project site (abutter to the north) Joseph and MeredithZona;39 Seth Lane, S. Yarmouth; Map 61, Parcel 54 (photos taken ll25l23) Existing beach area and south groin ~~USGS Topographic Maps Property Tax Parcels [15 V! ho eo/LNG hgNSaiakVIASS|Vit:DE \fF Leatet masses 39 Seth Lane RL #611500 "devi¥» 8 "hy A a Ed February 19,2024 ) 11,128 CJ parcel Boundaries !rehire 2 eth Low Larmatth Fle op Roan Shorefront - Shorefront Consulting Professional Services on Land or At Sea 290 Center St., Dennis Port, MA 02639 508-280-8046 www. shorefrontconsulting. com shorefrontconsulting@ gmail. com February 22,2024 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L., CH 131, Sec.40 I, Mark Burgess, of Shorefront Consulting, hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that on February 22,2024,I sent notification to abutters, in compliance with the second paragraph of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 13 1, Section 40, and the Department of Environmental Protections' Guide to Abutter Notification, dated, April 8, 1994, in connection with the following matter: A Notice of Intent was filed under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Yarmouth Wetlands Protection ByJaw, by Joseph and MeredithZonawith the Yarmouth Conservation Commission on February 22,2024 for the property located at 39 Seth Lane, Map 61, Parcel 54 in South Yarmouth, MA. The project is for the shorefront modifications and beach nourishment. The form of notification and a list of the abutters to whom the notice was given and their addresses are attached to this Affidavit of Service. Sincerely, Mark Burgess Shorefront Consulting Enclosures:As Stated cc: YarmouthConservationCommission Joseph and Meredith Zona (Applicants) Corrsulting Shorefront . Shorefront Consulting Professional Services on Land or At Sea 290 Center St., Dennis Port, MA 02639 ww.shorefrontconsulting.com 508-280-8046 shorefrontconsulting@gmail.com NOTIFICATION TO ABUTTERS UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETIANDS PROTECTION ACT & TOWN OF YARMOUTH WETTAND BY-LAW, CHAPTER 143 ln accordance with the second paragraph of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40, you are hereby notified of the following: A. The name of the applicant is Joseph and Meredith Zona B. The applicant has filed a Notice of lntent with the Yarmouth Conservation Commission, seeking permission to remove, fill, dredge or alter an Area Subject to Protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c. 131- s.40 & Town of Yarmouth Wetland By-Law, Chapter 143). C. The address of the lot where the activity is proposed is 39 Seth Lane D. Proposed work is for shorefront modifications and beach nourishment. E. Copies of the Notice of lntent may be examined at the Yarmouth Town Hall at the Conservation Commission office between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday. For more information, call (508) 398-223L ext. 1288. F. Copies of the Notice of lntent may be obtained from either the applicant or applicant's representative. Applicant's phone number Or Applicant's representatives phone number 508-280-8046 G. lnformation regarding the date, time and place of the public hearing may be obtained by calling the Yarmouth Conservation Commission office at (508) 398-223L ext. 1288 H. Person sending this notification (applicant, representative or other) Name Mark Burgess, Shorefront Consulting Address 290 Center Street Town Dennis Port State MA Zip 02639 Telephone 508-280-8046 NOTES: o MeetinB will be held both in person and by remote means; contact the town for login information. o Notice of the public hearing, including date, time and place wlll be published at least five (5) days in advance in the Register. o Notice of the public hearing, including date, time and place will be posted in the Town Hall not less than forty-eight hours in advance. o You may also contact the Southeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Protection at (508) 945-2800 for more information about this application. 701 1201 I I OBRIEN KEVIN W 36 KELLEY RD SOUTH YARMOUTH , MA 02664 61t 50/ I I I ZONAJOSEPHJ ] ZONA MEREDITH S 1 ANDREWS WAY . ARLINGTON , MA 02174.5805 61/ 52t I t BRITTON LEE JR 24 HIGHLAND AVE i SOUTH YARMOUTH, MA02664 611 4gl I t LARSEN JILL C TRS LARSEN CHRISTOPHER S TRS 152 LOWELL RD WELLESLEY, MA 02481-1216 61t 54t I I ZONA JOSEPH J ZONA MEREDITH S 1 ANDREWS WAY ARLINGTON ,MA02474 611 53/ I I ZONA JOSEPH J ZONA MERIDETH Sl ANDREWWAY ARLINGTON ,MA02474 Assessors-Map 61, LoI 53 Please use this signature to certify this list of properties abutting within 100' of the parcel located at: 39 Seth Ln., South Yarmouth, MA 02664