Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marine Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues review of seasonal ramp and float at 19 Procter Street pending engineering details
Summary
The commission continued the Notice of Intent for a seasonal ramp and 10x20 float at 19 Procter Street to July 21, requesting additional engineering on standoffs, flotation calculations, mitigation and storage to ensure the float will not damage mudflats or vernal habitats and to confirm whether planning‑board permits are needed.
The Manchester Conservation Commission continued the hearing for a Notice of Intent at 19 Procter Street after applicant representatives described a seasonal aluminum ramp (60 by 3 ft) attached to a 10x20 wooden float anchored by four helical anchors and six standoffs, and the commission raised multiple technical and mitigation questions.
Jordan Fultz of Gross Environmental told the commission the float will be installed by boat or barge and that the only permanent on‑shore element is a roughly 2x4 ft granite block. He said the float footprint is 388 square feet of land subject to coastal storm flowage and that the six standoffs create approximately 1.5 square feet of impact to coastal bank or shellfish areas; Division of Marine Fisheries offered a written comment indicating no resource concerns provided a 32‑inch minimum clearance is maintained.
Commissioners questioned whether the six-inch by six‑inch standoffs could sink into squishy mudflat material, how the float’s weight and a heavy gangway would affect flotation and mud penetration, where the float will be stored in the offseason (town has previously required that seasonal floats not be stored on coastal resource areas), and whether planning‑board review might also be required for intertidal work. One commissioner recommended mitigation such as eelgrass planting or native‑plant conversion at a 2:1 mitigation ratio under town bylaw when impacts are not negligible.
Given those unresolved technical details, the applicant agreed to provide contractor specifications (float company details, flotation skids or large‑footprint skids used to avoid sinking), flotation/force calculations and mitigation proposals. The commission continued the matter to its July 21 meeting and asked the applicant to return with more detailed information on how the float will avoid burrowing into the mudflat and where it will be stored when out of the water.
