Posted on April 22, 2019
Homeowners on Cape Cod have long looked for innovative technology to protect their homes from erosion, but it looks likely that rows of timber pilings will not fit the bill, at least not ones that are packed tightly together.
That is the takeaway from the latest decision implicating a proposal made by three New Seabury homeowners who have fought for several years with their neighbors in an effort to reduce erosion of a 30-foot coastal bank and ultimately save their homes from falling into Nantucket Sound.
The application—which calls for a buried wall of coconut fiber rolls and two rows of timber pilings—has moved from a Mashpee Conservation Commission decision made some five years ago and passed through multiple channels of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; even a number of state legislators have weighed in.
At the end of March, in the latest action in the case, MassDEP presiding officer Timothy M. Jones found that the application was “clearly prohibited by Wetland Regulations.”
He recommended that the secretary of the department vacate the application. Secretary Matthew A. Beaton has within 60 days to make a final decision.
The decision could be a landmark one. If Secretary Beacon goes along with the recommendation, it will be increasingly difficult for homeowners to construct these timber pilings as an alternative method to minimize erosion.
“This is a very important decision,” said Barry P. Fogel, an attorney who represents the neighbors of the project, residents at the Tidewatch condominium neighborhood. “If it holds up, it will prevent timber pilings that act as walls from popping up along the Massachusetts coast, at least at homes built after 1978.”
Kenneth Liatsos, Michael J. and Dawn M. Southwick, and David and Glenys Pinchin are the applicants hoping to protect their properties.
It is unclear what will happen next in the case, but it is unlikely Secretary Beaton will rule contrary to Mr. Jones as the presiding officer found a “preponderance of evidence” that the application would not comply with coastal beach standards.
At the forefront of Mr. Jones’s decision are the timber pilings, what the New Seabury applicants had continued to downsize throughout the application process, in an effort to meet standards of the 1978 Wetlands Protection Act. The applicants tried reducing the size of the pilings, increasing the gap between the pilings, and reducing the number.
Mr. Jones did not think they went far enough.
A protective structure that alters waves and ultimately the natural extraction of sand from a beach or coastal bank are both not allowed under the act. With structures like rock revetments, while they can protect a coast bank, also typically degrade the beaches they rest on, as well as beaches down the coast.
“There is no doubt that it is designed to alter wave, tidal, or sediment processes to protect the upland buildings from coastal erosion,” he wrote in his recommendation to the commissioner.
But while Mr. Jones said that he did not approve of the project, it was the spacing of the actual pilings that concerned him and not the pilings themselves.
The applicants had requested, after a number of settlement negotiations and remands, reducing the size of the pilings from 12-inch diameter pieces of timber to eight inches; and reducing the number from 256 down to 180.
Mr. Jones said that even with the increased spacing and regular man-made deposits of sand over the bank, the size of the beach would slowly, over time, decrease.
Mr. Fogel, the attorney representing the neighbors, said it is unclear where the case will go at this point, but the applicants could decide to appeal to superior court, or they could try to negotiate a settlement, should Mr. Beaton accept Mr. Jones’s recommendation.
A timber piling structure had been approved by the conservation commission and installed on a beach right next to section that would be modified by the recent proposal. The pilings only have a one-inch gap. Over the years, the conservation commission has criticized the owners of the pilings for not properly maintaining them.
Per the approval of the commission, the owners are required to regularly add sand to the coastal bank and beach behind the pilings. While the conservation commission approved the project, the application did not face the opposition similar to the latest New Seabury project and was never appealed.
Earlier in the case, the state had considered rejecting even the coir envelopes proposed. Mr. Jones, in 2016, had recommended rejecting the application as he found that the coir envelopes were altering wave action and natural sand movement.
Following the recommendation, 36 state legislators, from mostly coastal communities and led by Mashpee representative David T. Vieira, responded to Mr. Jones’s recommendation with concerns that any such decision would have serious implications for coastal communities.
“Because of the wide-reaching implications of this recommended decision for the entire Massachusetts coastline, we ask that it be rejected and DEP’s longstanding interpretation of its regulations be honored, allowing property owners to continue to implement ‘soft’ solutions, including the one DEP approved here,” the letter reads.
Communities across the state, and specifically on the Upper Cape, have continued to use coir envelopes. Even the town of Mashpee has installed coir envelopes at South Cape Beach to protect a parking lot.
In 2017, MassDEP commissioner Martin Suuberg ruled contrary to Mr. Jones that coir envelopes buried inside a dune overlooking Nantucket Sound could constitute a soft solution for controlling erosion. But he had a difficult time with the timber piling part of the plan, and ultimately remanded the application back to the applicants and opponents.
Source: capenews.net
