Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineer and commission debate proposed gabion retaining wall at 9 Louise Street; site visit set for July 27
Summary
A proposal to replace a timber retaining wall at 9 Louise Street with gabion baskets prompted concerns from commissioners because Plum Island rules generally disallow new retaining/hard structures; the project team says gabions are more permeable and easier to construct. Commissioners scheduled a site visit for July 27 and continued review to Aug. 4.
Mary Rimmer of Rimmer Environmental Consulting presented a notice of intent to the Newburyport Conservation Commission on behalf of property owner Sharon Scott seeking to replace an aging timber retaining wall at 9 Louise Street with a gabion (rock-filled wire basket) wall and to restore about 570 square feet of coastal dune.
Rimmer said the existing timber wall is deteriorating and the site’s tight horizontal profile limits options. The plan calls for removing the terraced raised beds, installing a gabion wall at the existing main wall location and restoring dune vegetation between the new wall and the marsh. She said the project team obtained a DEP file number and that DEP had no comments on the project.
Several commissioners questioned the choice of a gabion solution on Plum Island, where the commission noted it has historically not permitted new retaining walls or similar hard structures. One member said, "We don't allow hard structures and nor do we allow retaining walls," expressing concern about establishing a precedent. Commissioners repeatedly asked why a green, bioengineered solution would not work given the site's context.
Israel Burl of Burl Engineering, the project designer, responded that the gabion baskets were chosen because they allow water to pass through, are constructible in a constrained area without large machinery, and provide robust stability in sandy soils. Burl said alternative vegetative or engineered slope solutions would require substantial grading (he estimated a 3:1 slope needing about 12 feet of horizontal space) and would intrude on the foundation area.
Commissioners asked for an alternatives analysis and expressed a desire to inspect the site in person. The commission scheduled a site visit for Monday, July 27 at 1:00 p.m.; several members confirmed availability while others reported conflicts. The commission agreed to keep the item on the Aug. 4 agenda for further deliberation after the site visit. No final permit decision was made at the July 21 meeting.
The exchange highlighted regulatory tension between Plum Island's historical limitations on new hard structures and practical constraints at heavily built sites where replacement of failing infrastructure is proposed.
