Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShorefront to Waterways and Conservation 104 River St project updated 8-12-26 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 Updated August 12, 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 Updated comments relating to the revised plan dated 7/27/26 are below. I have reviewed the revised plan dated 7/7/26 from Atlantic Coast Engineering. The plan continues to provide insufficient and incorrect information. My concerns are as follows: 1) The pier on the 6/26/26 plan was too short and didn't provide the required depth at the end of the pier. The pier is back to being 32' long, when only about 12 feet is required to reach 3 feet of water at low tide. This was mentioned in my previous comments. Now the pier is too long; i.e. it doesn't have to be 32 feet long and I would recommend that the pier be shortened to the correct length to reach the required depth. While the pier appears to extend similar to adjacent structures, it’s still longer than it needs to be. 2) The distance to the channel may not be correct. The dimension was changed from 140 feet to 115. The leader for the dimension points to space, and not to the dotted line. There is another dimension that reads 148.9' to the channel, but there's nothing in the plan at that point. It may have been the previously shown red channel marker, but that marker is now absent from the plan. The plan for Mr. Hearn's project showed the channel to be 100 feet wide and approximately 79 feet from that pier, whereas the Atlantic Coast Engineering plan indicates that the channel is 60 feet wide and 115 feet from their proposed pier. I believe the 60 foot width is incorrect, but the committee likely knows the correct answer. If the channel width is different than 60 feet, then the plan has to be revised yet again to show the correct distances. 3) The distance to the abutting float at 110 River Street is not shown. The distance shown is to the pier, but not the float, which would shorten that distance to even less than 68.5 feet and still require a variance. The plan should be revised to show the distance to the McCarthy float so that navigation concerns can be properly evaluated. This has been mentioned in my previous reviews. Overall, while some corrections were made, the plan still does not provide adequate or correct information for the Waterways Committee to fully evaluate the proposal. As this is the 4th attempt to create a basic plan to show required information, perhaps the committee should not recommend approval of this project based on the failure of the applicant to provide sufficient information to evaluate the proposal. On a separate note, my comments related to conservation still stand. The plan is very inadequate to include the conservation's new January 15, 2026 plan requirements, and will likely not be heard at conservation on August 20 unless and until the plan can be revised to reflect the required conservation information, setbacks, and resource area table, to name a few. The NOI does not seem to be corrected to date. Please refer to my previous comments below from my letter dated July 6, 2020. Please include these additional comments in both the waterways and conservation filing for this project. Previous comments from July 6, 2026 are below. 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 am still concerned with the lack of information and the lack of correct information for this project. The applicant has been advised several times on how the project might be improved, and progress is slow and the plan is still lacking information and is incorrect. Updated 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 attended the second waterways hearing on June 11, and I have reviewed the revised plan dated 6/22/26 provided by the applicant. The plan STILL incorrectly shows the abutting Hearn dock to the north to now be only a straight fixed pier. The previous plan showed the correct layout, only that the “L” at the end of the pier was incorrectly labeled as a float which was incorrect. The revised plan deleted the “L”, which is still incorrect. The revised plan removes the previous ramp and float, and changes the design to a fixed pier; similar to the approved pier to the north for Mr. Hearn. The plan still mentions a ramp and float (notes #9 and #14) and should be deleted from the plan. The plan was revised to show the distance to the town beach to the north. In my opinion, this is the only revision that is correct. The previous plan showed the distance to the channel being to the red buoy, which is the farthest edge of the channel, not the closest edge that is required. The applicant was advised on the channel width and asked to revise that dimension to show the correct distance to the channel. Instead, that dimension is deleted from the current revision. The applicant was asked to provide the distance to the McCarthy float. The distance is shown as 78.9’ to the McCarthy pier, but is incorrect because the distance is required to be measured from the float, which would be approximately 8 feet closer, or about 70 feet. The float is not shown on the plan, and this dimension must be corrected so that the distance from the proposed pier to the McCarthy float is indicated. The required 3 feet of water depth is reached approximately 12 feet from the bulkhead. The pier was shortened again but now is too short as there appears to be only 1.5 feet of water at low tide where 3 feet is required. The pier should now be lengthened to approximately 12 feet (as previously advised) to a point where 3 feet of water is reached at low tide, in accordance with the regulations. 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 channel. The plan incorrectly shows the approved dock to the north, and does not show the McCarthy float to the south or the distance to it. 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. The attempts made so far by the applicant to make simple plan changes as requested appear completely inadequate and incorrect. If the committee decides to give the applicant one more chance to come up with a plan with the required information and a design that more closely reflects the regulation requirements, it is their ability to do so. However, if the applicant chooses not to provide this information, or the committee decides that the applicant has been given sufficient advice and opportunity to provide the required information, but failed to do so, then the committee should vote to not support this application based on the lack of information. 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 plan does not comply with the updated plan requirements dated 1/15/26, and requires updating before the commission can review it. 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 twice, 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 on the plans and the NOI application. 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 still 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. At this point, the applicant has been given sufficient information (literally spelled out in writing) to provide a plan and an application that is complete enough for the conservation committee to review. The revised plan is not complete and requires additional and correct information to proceed with conservation. The application information is incorrect, the required variances have not been adequately addressed, and the required alternatives analysis have not been provided. The application as currently presented can be denied based on the lack of information. Respectfully submitted, Mark Burgess Shorefront Consulting B.S. Ocean Engineering cc: Yarmouth Conservation Commission (by email)