Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Engineering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues Zel Street seawall proposal amid questions about tiebacks, timing and road impacts
Summary
Engineers presented plans to replace and extend a 72‑foot stretch of bulkhead at 203 Zel Street with composite sheeting and tiebacks. Commissioners and neighbors pressed for changes to avoid removing cedars, protect winter flounder (Jan–May restriction), require turbidity controls and ensure Westminster private‑road impacts are repaired; the project was continued to April 22 for redesign details.
A proposal to reconstruct and extend a deteriorated seawall at 203 Zel Street prompted detailed engineering questions and neighborhood concerns at the March 25 Falmouth Conservation Commission meeting.
Chuck Roland of Capen Islands Engineering presented plans to replace an existing stone and concrete bulkhead with a composite (corrugated) sheeting wall, install tiebacks and a 72‑foot return to stabilize a long‑term erosion problem. Roland said work would be conducted from the landward side, with the contractor staging in the driveway to avoid material placement on the seaward side. He proposed tiebacks or deadmen to shore up the ends of the wall and said some cedar removal might be unavoidable to accomplish the work, while offering to revise tieback locations to reduce tree loss.
Staff and commissioners raised multiple concerns: (1) biology and seasonality — the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries recommends limiting work to avoid winter flounder breeding (Jan–May restriction) and using containment such as silt curtains/booms to prevent turbidity; (2) structural risk — staff asked for assurances that removing the applicant’s section would not destabilize the remaining existing wall; (3) public‑right‑of‑way and neighbor impacts — Westminster is a private road; neighbors and co‑owners asked that construction staging not be parked on the road and that any damage be repaired by the applicant; (4) tree/vegetation loss at the road end and the potential need to replant cedars or other native species.
Commissioners and public commenters asked the applicant to provide a redesign showing tieback locations with less tree impact, confirm storage of construction materials on the subject parcel, document time‑of‑year restrictions and turbidity controls, and identify how the deadman/tieback work would affect the private‑road layout. Multiple public commenters asked that the applicant commit to repairing any road damage.
Outcome: The commission voted to continue the matter to April 22 to allow the applicant to provide a redesign and incorporate conditions addressing time‑of‑year restrictions, turbidity controls and preservation or replacement of shoreline vegetation. DMF recommendations (time‑of‑year restrictions and silt containment) will be included among likely conditions.
