Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Bank Stabilization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners seek repairs, sandbag and plantings to stabilize Great Island bank; commission asks for changes and continues hearing
Summary
Yarmouth Conservation Commission continued review Feb. 6 of a notice of intent for 1033 Great Island Road after engineers and ecologists described repair work to roughly 300 feet of low concrete walls, sandbag repairs for scarped bank sections and dense American beach grass plantings.
The Yarmouth Conservation Commission held a public hearing Feb. 6 on a notice of intent for 1033 Great Island Road, where Lighthouse Realty Trust proposed phased repairs to an existing network of low concrete walls, biodegradable sandbag repairs in eroded scarps, and plantings to stabilize a coastal bank.
Bob Perry of Cape Cod Engineering described the project as a set of coordinated repairs to a beach system dominated by stone groins, low concrete walls and breakwaters. The filing proposes patching much of the roughly 300 feet of existing concrete wall, replacing about 66 feet of severely damaged segments, and reestablishing a small return wall segment to close a bay that now allows focused overtopping and scarping.
Ian Peach of Wilkinson Ecological Design described ecological measures: dense plantings of American beach grass (12 inches on center in high‑need areas, 24 inches elsewhere) and hand removal of five Japanese black pines the team identified as non‑native and likely invasive. The group also proposes biodegradable burlap sandbags to buttress scarped hollows at the toe of the bank, followed by soil cover and plantings to encourage consolidation and vegetative stabilization.
Commission discussion focused on the proposed return/extension of a low crested wall into the velocity (V) zone and whether the Commission's standards for structures in the V‑zone and for potential reflected wave energy onto neighboring properties would allow the return. Commissioners asked about alternatives such as core sand lifts or fiber rolls, scour effects, long‑term nourishment obligations and the potential need for a Chapter 91 filing. The project team said the return would be low (roughly 2 feet exposed at the most revealed section, top of wall near elevation 5.2) and argued the return is a small cross section consistent with nearby legacy features; they also said Wilkinson would manage plantings and that the owner intends to periodically nourish the beach.
Commission members requested additional information and flagged policy concerns about placing new hard structure into a V‑zone. The applicant agreed to consider alternatives and return to the commission. The commission voted to continue the hearing to Feb. 20 to allow more study and a revised submission.
The project team noted they had located a Chapter 91 license number 197 (issued 1976) for existing licensed structures and that additional filings with state agencies may be required.
