Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShorefront to Waterways and Conservation 104 River St project 6-3-26 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 Yarmouth Waterways and Shellfish Advisory Commission June 5, 2026 Attn: Kathyrn Brooks 424 Route 28 West Yarmouth, MA 02675 By email Re: Application Filing Package Review for 104 River Street; Proposed Pier, Ramp, and Float I am writing to the commission as a private citizen in opposition to the proposed Pier, Ramp, and Float at 104 River Street. I am a seasoned professional that designs and permits docks in many towns on and off the Cape, and has done so for over 25 years. I was notified of this project because my client at the time was Mr. McCarthy at 110 River Street. I was working on his Certificate of Compliance request when I was notified of a Notice of Intent filed for his property. The request was approved and I am no longer working for Mr. McCarthy. Naturally I was curious since I didn’t file anything and I looked into the matter more closely. Frankly, I was appalled at the lack of required information in the application that is needed to move a project forward. Waterways concerns: I attended the first waterways hearing on April 9th for 5 of my projects on the agenda and listened to the presentation for the 104 River Street project, where the committee had several questions and concerns for the project. I share the same concerns that are mentioned in the April 9 minutes with the committee. The applicant was asked to provide additional information such as distances to adjacent structures, the public beach, and the distance to the channel. The pier length was also an issue where it extended too far towards the channel, and where 3 feet of water is reached much closer to shore. There was a discussion of the 4 variances needed to approve the project, which is within the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. The hearing was continued to allow time for the applicant to provide the required information. I have reviewed the revised plan and supplemental information provided by the applicant. The plan incorrectly shows the abutting dock to the north to have a float which is incorrect. The plan was revised to show the distance to the channel without the other requested distances to the public beach and adjacent float on 110 River Street. The required 3 feet of water depth is reached approximately 12 feet from the bulkhead. The pier was shortened, but it still can be shortened at least 5’ feet more and still reach the required water depth and maintain the proposed ramp angle. As a designer, I have an issue with the proposed concrete blocks to secure the float. The ramp appears to be attached to the float without sliding back and forth and perhaps with the standard hinged connection to the pier. A boat docked here with the swift tidal current puts tremendous stress on the hinged attachment of the ramp to the float and to the pier. Personally, I do not think this design will hold up under normal tidal conditions, not to mention storms, wind, and waves. It was suggested that the applicant change this arrangement to piles for a more standard approach. For some reason, the revised plan does not include this change. Generally, the purview of the Waterways and Shellfish Advisory Committee is to review projects with respect to shellfish and navigation. The revised plan does not provide the requested distances to adjacent structures and the public beach. Therefore, the committee does not have adequate information to evaluate the project with regards to navigation, and the project should not be allowed to move forward unless and until this information is provided. Conservation concerns: In a letter from the applicant dated 3/18/2626, the applicant attempted to address several issues related to the initial NOI filing. I reviewed the revised materials submitted on 3/18/2026. The revised plan dated 5/6/26 is also in the town online documents. The application is still lacking much of the required information that the agent requested. The plan requirements for NOI filings were implemented on January 15, 2026, and the NOI was submitted on January 29, 2026. There is no table of resource areas and impacts on the plan. The required distances to evaluate the project for the variances are not on the plan. The 35-foot resource area offset is not shown on the plan. The NOI value for LSCSF was not correct and was not changed, and is therefore still incorrect. I don’t see where there is 459 square feet of LSCSF when the pier occupies 4’x 16’. The value for the total area of Riverfront Area on the lot and the associated impact area are incorrect. The value for Land under ocean is incorrect; the float itself occupies 200 square feet without the ramp and pier included. The value for Land Containing Shellfish is also incorrect. I do not see an alternatives analysis in the NOI filing, nor an alternatives analysis for the Riverfront Area. There are 4 variances requested but the project needs 5. The additional variance comes from the regulation specifying that the pier must be located in the center of the lot. The pier does not meet this requirement. My only comment for a pier proposed on property that does not belong to the applicant without their permission (which admittedly is not within the jurisdiction of the commission), is about as bold and inconsiderate as it gets. Chapter 91 will require a letter of permission from the property owners for the license application and I do not believe the applicant can obtain such letters. Overall, the application is very incomplete. The applicant was asked to provide more information. While the plan was revised, it still does not have the required information. The NOI doesn’t seem to be revised at all. This is very disrespectful to the permitting process and the staff and volunteers that serve to implement that process. The applicant was given a chance to provide the required information and has chosen not to do so. In my opinion, this project should be denied because of the lack of information and what appears to be the applicant’s refusal to supply said information. The denial has no bearing on surrounding piers or structures; it would be based on the applicant’s refusal to cooperate and provide the required information. Further, I believe that the project can be denied because a variance from the 75-foot setback to the abutting dock to the south is still required whether or not the dock to the north is constructed. Even if the applicant provided the necessary information, the project can be denied based on its own merits because of the excessive amount of variances required to obtain approval. It may be possible to re-design the project to better meet the objectives of both the Waterways Committee and the Conservation Commission, but the applicant appears to have provided a minimal effort to do so. While approval is never guaranteed, there should at least be an attempt to provide the best available project for the Waterways Committee and the Conservation Commission to consider. Failure to provide that effort is also grounds for denial. Respectfully submitted, Mark Burgess Shorefront Consulting B.S. Ocean Engineering cc: Yarmouth Conservation Commission (by email)