Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWSAC 4.9.2026 DRAFT minutesOn //2026, on a motion by committee member , seconded by committee member , the Waterways & Shellfish Advisory Committee voted - to approve these minutes as written. YARMOUTH WATERWAYS AND SHELLFISH ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 9, 2026 MEMBERS PRESENT: Julian Mallett (Chairman), Bob Churchill, Mike Dunbar, Jack Moynihan, Ellie Lawrence STAFF PRESENT: Dave Condon, Kathryn Brooks OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Burgess, Kelly and Tom Houston, James Mahoney, Brad Holmes, Scott Martin, Brian Wall _______________________________________________________________________________ At 5:34 p.m. Dave Condon, Director of Natural Resources, read the open meeting law and explained the meeting audio was going to be recorded. Agenda 1. Public Comment Kelly and Tom Houston voiced their displeasure with the boat slips at Grays Beach. They said they have pictures of empty slips from the past few years and would like to propose a system like how the kayak spots are claimed, to avoid empty slips. The Houston’s said they have been on the waitlist for 4 years. They believe the current waitlist system pressures slip holders to keep their slips instead of giving them up for fear they will never get off the waitlist if they go back on. They noted there is a kayak in one of the slips as well. 2. Notice of Intent a. Atlantic Coast Engineering LLC, 104-110 River Street, proposed fixed pier, gangway, and float The presenters for this project were James Mahoney with Atlantic Engineering, Brad Holmes the environmental consultant, Scott Martin the applicant. Mr. Mahoney gave an overview of the project and Mr. Holmes explained he did the shellfish survey. Very few shellfish were found in this area. Ms. Lawrence asked for clarification on whether the float was secured by anchors instead of piles, and she also asked if they had done this in a tidal zone because the dock will slide all over and is very close to another dock. Ms. Lawrence also noted the dock stuck out very far. The answer was yes, it would be secured by anchors, though Mr. Mahoney did not know what type of anchors would be used. The gangway would be secured to the dock. Mr. Dunbar recused himself since he helped with the shellfish survey. Ms. Lawrence also noted the plan does not show the approved pier that is not yet built. Chairman Mallett said this is an area of concern for navigation and the channel would be restricted. Ms. Lawrences said this project would require many variances and it would be very hard to use the area. On //2026, on a motion by committee member , seconded by committee member , the Waterways & Shellfish Advisory Committee voted - to approve these minutes as written. Mr. Mahoney stated the 4 variances needed are: 75’ variance from other docks, 200’ from a beach, 100’ from the navigable channel, and lot line variances. Chairman Mallett and Mr. Moynihan both echo concerns about the proximity of the proposed dock to the channel. Ms. Lawrence motions to not recommend this project due to navigational concerns and variances that apply to this committee. Mr. Burgess, of Shorefront Consulting, voiced his opinion on the project. He said the dock goes very far out and impedes the use of an already approved dock. The float could be moved closer to land because there is adequate water. The proposed dock is not in the center of the lot, there is no distance to the channel, beach, and dock to the South marked on the plan. Chairman Mallett asks if there should be a vote or if the project should be withdrawn and brought back at a later date. Mr. Martin voiced his frustration and then asked why his dock is any different than the dock to the north that was approved with the same variances he is asking for. Mr. Mallett again stated his concern for the navigable channel and the proposed dock looks like it would be within the channel. Mr. Holmes and Mr. Martin asked for feedback on changes such as if they could bring the dock back, (closer to shore) and change from anchors to pilings. Ms. Lawrence said a helix anchor with a rubberband would probably be the best option, but she is not here to design the plan. She also voiced concerns about the flexibility of the ramp and if it became attached. She believes 3’ of water can be attained closer to land and they should look at the contours of the channel. Mr. Holmes recapped asking if the distance to the channel, south dock, and beach are all that is needed. Ms. Lawrence said those would be good to look at, however, making those changes does not guarantee approval from the committee. Ms. Brooks also suggested looking at the comments the Conservation Administrator made on the initial plan that was submitted. It appeared to Ms. Brooks the information added was a bare minimum and suggested adding more “meat” to the details for a stronger plan. Mr. Martin said he does not want to lose his rights to someone with a lot of money. This has cost him a lot of time and money, and he doesn’t like how “we” hand docks to rich people, the Davenports. Mr. Burgess said each project is based on its own merits. Ms. Lawrence motions to continue to May 14. This was seconded by Mr. Churchill and the motion passed 4-0-1. Ms. Brooks chimed in that new plans and materials must be submitted 2 weeks prior to the next meeting. b. Shorefront Consulting, 49 Neptune Lane, proposed reconstruction of bulkhead, floats, and relocation of landing This project is looking to move the pier and leave the floats in the same place so the homeowners can have more space on the floats. The piles will be pulled and will be reused if in good condition. Ms. Lawrence motions to recommend this project to Conservation. The motion is seconded by Mr. Moynihan, and the motion passed 5-0. On //2026, on a motion by committee member , seconded by committee member , the Waterways & Shellfish Advisory Committee voted - to approve these minutes as written. c. Shorefront Consulting, 14 Compass Drive, proposed bulkhead The bulkhead will be replaced to match the adjacent bulkhead by moving landward and increasing in height. The “corner” is dangerous and the bulkhead will be brought out by building in front of the existing structure. There are also large stones in the water that were placed as an experiment that will also be removed. Mr. Moynihan motions to recommend this project to Conservation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lawrence and passed 5-0. d. Shorefront Consulting, 7 Cape Isle Drive, proposed float reconfiguration, platform and bulkhead reconstruction These floats are out of compliance and will be brought back into compliance. The bulkhead will be replaced in kind. Mr. Churchill motioned to recommend this project to Conservation. Ms. Lawrence seconded and the motion passed 5-0. e. Shorefront Consultant, 166 Blue Rock Road & 66 Osgood Road, proposed repairs, and ultimately a reconstruction and reconfiguration, of landing and access stairs, and reconstruction and extension of bulkhead As was explained by Mr. Burgess, this project is a carbon copy of the neighbor’s project. The bulkhead will tie into the neighbors, but only cosmetically. It will be treated like a new bulkhead and will be filled behind at a moderate slope. There will be stairs leading down to the beach as well. The anticipated timeline would see permitting over summer and a fall project due to possible DMF requirements. Ms. Lawrence motioned to recommend this project Conservation. It was seconded by Mr. Moynihan and passed 5-0. f. Shorefront Consulting, 66A River Street, lengthen ramp and change float size and shape The goal of this project, explained by Mr. Burgess, is to get a longer dock. Ms. Lawrence said this project previously had limited the watercraft to a 17’ whaler, and the current boat is much larger. Director Condon chimed in that we have no say in what boat is put on a dock. Ms. Lawrence voiced concerns about the distance this dock is from the public beach near the windmill and with the past history of this applicant she cannot support it. Mr. Dunbar asked about the shellfish and was told no survey was done. Mr. Burgess explained the shellfish would be relocated at the time of the project. It was discussed by the Director that while it is a commercial area, the floats are seasonal and would not impede winter shellfishing and relocating any shellfish is reasonable. On //2026, on a motion by committee member , seconded by committee member , the Waterways & Shellfish Advisory Committee voted - to approve these minutes as written. Ms. Lawrence motions to not recommend this project to conservation. It was seconded by Mr. Dunbar and passed 5-0. When asked for further reasoning on why the motion went this way Ms. Lawrence replied it was due to concerns about what goes on the float and the distance to the beach. Discussion continued and Mr. Churchill asked how this complied with current regulations and Ms. Lawrence said it appeared to be within 100’ of the channel. Ms. Brooks recommended for committee members to remove their personal feelings about boats and look at the project for what it is. Director Condon reiterated that this committee looks for impacts on navigation and shellfish and that is it. Mr. Moynihan has more clarity and understands the situation. Mr. Moynihan motioned to rescind the previous motion. Ms. Lawrence seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0. Mr. Moynihan motioned to recommend the project to Conservation with the condition that DNR will be notified when shellfish are to be relocated prior to driving in piles. The motion was seconded by Ms. Lawrence, and the motion passed 3-1-1 with Ms. Lawrence voting against it and Mr. Churchill abstaining.