Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press planning board over proposed dune‑restoration design; board tables decision
Summary
An Archipelago Portland engineer presented a DEP‑backed tapered/curved dune‑stabilization design and an expert email from the Maine Geological Survey; multiple abutters said the plan could increase scour on neighbors and the board voted to table the application for more review.
Mike Moss of Archipelago Portland presented updated plans for dune restoration and shore stabilization at the Curran property on Tall C Street, telling the board the application now includes the town's normal high‑water line, a 25‑foot offset and an expert email from the Maine Geological Survey (Pete Slivinski) supporting the proposed tapered/curved design.
"We provided the board with an email, from the Maine Geological Survey, specifically Pete Slivinski, their marine geologist," Moss said, and described the tapered design as intended "to diffuse wave energy" rather than a vertical seawall.
Several abutters and longtime residents said the drawings and scale were inaccurate, questioned whether curved returns would funnel water into gaps and warned the plan could accelerate erosion on neighboring properties. One nearby resident who identified himself as Dave Dunhead described the inlet as a "closed system" and warned a new concrete apron and higher wall would funnel water into adjacent lots: "CAT Cove is an absolute closed system," he said, urging the board to consider 3‑D volume and the potential for channeling and scour.
Board members asked whether the DEP had approved straight vertical walls as an alternative; Moss said the DEP had permitted a straight wall as a fallback but that the proposed curved/tapered design is the preferred approach and that the Natural Resources Protection Act (chapter 355 rules) limits how far seaward the board may permit hard armoring. Several commenters recounted historical patterns of erosion and repairs and urged the board not to allow additional rock or bulk mass on the beach.
Given the wide disagreement among neighbors and remaining technical questions about end effects, the board voted to table the matter until next month so the applicant and abutters could pursue clarifications, additional cross‑section details, and confirm DEP permit status. Planning staff noted that an appeal on an earlier permit remains pending with the Board of Appeals, which may affect timing for any final approval.
Next step: application will return to the planning board after the applicant provides requested clarifications and (as needed) further documentation from DEP or coastal‑engineering specialists.
