Updated 4 pm, Dec. 23
At the Martha’s Vineyard Commission’s second public hearing on the proposed North Bluff seawall restoration project Thursday, Dec. 17, the aesthetics of the corrugated steel wall that would buttress the deteriorating bank and the potential loss of public beachfront remained sticking points.
Rather than make a decision, commissioners voted to keep public comment open until Monday, Dec. 28, and to discuss and deliberate again on Thursday, Jan. 7.
The Oak Bluffs planning board referred the project to the MVC as a development of regional impact (DRI). Board members cited a lack of public input for their decision, as well as concerns that the project would unnecessarily sacrifice a valuable town beach.
The plan is to construct a steel-sheet seawall to buttress the eroding bank, with boulders at its base, and build a boardwalk from the harbor to the new fishing pier. The project was scheduled to move into the construction phase, with a spring completion date.
At the first MVC hearing held on Dec. 10, several commissioners agreed with opponents of the project that the schematic side-view drawings and the artistic front elevation rendering, which showed the seawall from a distance, lacked detail. Carlos Pena, project engineer from CLE Engineering, was asked to return with detailed, “Photoshopped” renderings — the proposed seawall/boardwalk overlaid on an actual photo of the bluff.
At the second hearing, Mr. Pena presented a rendering from a closer perspective. However, it did not satisfy veteran commissioner Linda Sibley of West Tisbury, who said the “pastel” style still lacked the necessary detail.
A number of commissioners agreed that they couldn’t vote without a better idea of what the finished product — a $5.6 million corrugated steel seawall and boardwalk — would look like.
“We just had an applicant who had a much smaller project, he was putting up a fence, and he managed to give us exactly what we’re asking from you,” she said.
The DRI hearings mark another in a series of unexpected delays that have bedeviled the project since $5.6 million in state funding — $3.6 million from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) dam and seawall fund, and $2 million from the state Seaport Advisory Council — was approved in June.
Both grants may be lost if the project is not completed, or close to it, by June 30, 2016, according to town administrator Robert Whritenour.
“Sometimes in the language, we lose the enormity of what’s at stake,” Mr. Whritenour said last Thursday night. “There are extraordinarily serious implications on the bluff if the seawall is not constructed. The consequences if that seawall collapses are beyond our comprehension. We simply can’t let that happen.”
One North Bluff resident, tongue-in-cheek, asked for a new rendering that will show what the North Bluff will look like after the seawall fails.
Procedural debates aplenty
Before the hearing began in earnest, the commissioners had to settle an internal squabble. Tisbury commissioner Josh Goldstein, the youngest member of the commission, was told he could not participate because he’d missed the first hearing on Dec. 10, and that he needed to “rehabilitate” his standing by sitting silently on the sidelines for the evening’s proceedings.
Mr. Goldstein contended he should be eligible to participate because he watched the first hearing on MVTV. Ms. Sibley and commission chairman Fred Hancock disagreed.
“This is a stupid rule,” Chilmark commissioner Joan Malkin said, to the agreement of several commissioners. Ms. Malkin also missed the first hearing, and was under the same restrictions as Mr. Goldstein.
Underscoring the rushed nature of the hearings, DRI director Paul Foley told the board that the extensive follow-up questionnaire the MVC sent to Mr. Pena had been returned at 3:30 pm that day, leaving the board, and those in attendance, little time to digest the information. It was disseminated to the commission via email at 4:30 pm, according to Mr. Goldstein.
Mr. Pena was flanked by selectman Walter Vail and town administrator Robert Whritenour. Mr. Vail told the commission he was there to give his “strong support” to the project, and that he was also speaking for selectmen Kathy Burton and Greg Coogan.
Ms. Sibley told Mr. Vail that his statement would have to wait until the applicant’s presentation.
Mr. Whritenour contended that the town was the applicant, and therefore Mr. Vail’s statement should be heard.
Another procedural debate ensued, until Mr. Pena offered to take the role of applicant. He told the board he’d spent a great deal of time on the MVC questionnaire, which he’d only received on Tuesday morning. It was his understanding that his answers would be read for the record, in which case he had nothing to add.
Another procedural discussion
MVC executive director Adam Turner stepped in. After providing a quick summation of the facts from the first hearing, Mr. Turner read the salient questions and Mr. Pena answered the questions for the commission and for the record.
Mr. Pena went into detail about the many reasons why he chose corrugated steel over a concrete wall, including cost savings, expedience, and reduced vulnerability to weather during construction, since concrete cannot be poured in cold winter temperatures. Mr. Pena said the concrete would cost $9,600 per linear foot; the steel would cost $4,868 per linear foot.
“In this case, with the time constraints, with the soil conditions, with the budget we have, and with the required performance standard of the wall, this is what we came up with,” he said.
Commissioner Christina Brown of Edgartown asked how realistic it is, given the delays, that the project will be completed by the June 30 deadline.
Mr. Pena assured the board it could still be “substantially complete” by the deadline.
Mr. Pena took exception to a photograph of a rusted, severely degraded seawall in an unidentified location Ewell Hopkins, a member of the Oak Bluffs planning board, posted on the town committee’s Facebook page.
Mr. Pena said that the corrugated steel for the proposed wall was of a much higher grade and would not age in the same manner.
Beach in question
The rendering also drew criticism for depicting the beach based on the assumption it had been replenished with sand. Mr. Pena said the Beach Nourishment 2 project, which would take sand from Sengekontacket and deposit it at North Bluff Beach, has been undergoing permitting since 2011. He said Hurricane Sandy caused a major delay in the permitting process. “Right now we’re in the process of answering DEP’s [Department of Environmental Protection] questions, and I expect us to be finished in 2016,” Mr. Pena said. Mr. Turner pointed out five more permits that still hadn’t been obtained, including the Army Corps of Engineers and Coastal Zone Management (CZM).
“You have significant permits still to get,” Mr. Turner said.
Commissioner James Joyce of Edgartown asked if there would still be any beach left if the wall was installed as planned and fronted by the two- to four-ton boulders shown. Mr. Pena said the beach would still be usable at low tide, as it is today. Several photos presented to the commission showed the beach, in its current state, can be fully submerged at high tide.
Mr. Goldstein asked Mr. Pena if the proposed wall is high enough, and reminded him that previously he had to come back to the commission a second time to raise the height of the public fishing pier.
Ms. Sibley reiterated to Mr. Goldstein that he was not allowed to ask questions. After Mr. Goldstein challenged Ms. Sibley, another procedural discussion ensued.
For and against
Once town officials were allowed to speak, Mr. Vail officially repeated that he expressed his strong support for the project as designed, and that of selectmen Kathy Burton and Greg Coogan. In a written statement read by Mr. Vail, Mr. Coogan said the project was crucial for the “safety of the road and the safety of the thousands and thousands of visitors and residents who pass through the North Bluff … We all want a beach, but none exists now.”
Selectman Gail Barmakian said the design of the wall had changed drastically over time, and she thinks the corrugated steel “looks awful” and does not provide enough beach access. She also expressed concern that the project could be completed by the June 30 deadline.
ConCom chairman Joan Hughes showed the commission enlarged photos of the North Bluff to show how the bluff, and the current seawall, are prone to collapse. She said that the collapse of the Pay Beach seawall in 2008 raised concerns about the overall integrity of the town seawalls, and that the ConCom has been on a crash course in seawall engineering ever since. “We’re very fortunate that much of the really good coastal engineering science is happening three miles away in Woods Hole,” she said, adding that the town was fortunate to have an engineer with Mr. Pena’s expertise heading up the North Bluff restoration. Ms. Hughes also addressed opponents of the wall who believe that it’s preferable to start the process over, even if it means losing the current funding and having the town foot the bill. “I say, ‘You’ve got to be kidding,’” she said. “[The town] has a $24 million budget, 65 percent of which goes to the schools. The town can’t spare $5.6 million dollars.” Ms. Hughes asked the commissioners to weigh what is best for the town overall, when considering the objections of a small group of opponents. “Change is tough,” she said.
Oak Bluffs Planning Board (OBPB) chairman Brian Packish, a strong opponent of the project, asked if anyone from the town had asked the state agencies for an extension on the funding. He received no answer.
Mr. Packish contended that a concrete wall was feasible and would save the town money in the long run, and the estimated annual maintenance cost on the steel wall, approximately $7,000, was grossly underestimated.
He also contended that from a visual standpoint, a steel wall is out of character with Oak Bluffs.
“We all know this has to happen,” he said. “This is not a discussion about whether the North Bluff needs help. It’s a question about what the people want and what their confidence level is in this administration,” he said.
Mr. Packish also expressed doubts that the seawall is on the brink of collapse. “When I think of the fear of the bluff falling and all this negative stuff going on, if I close my eyes I feel like I can hear Chicken Little running from the North Bluff to town hall, saying, ‘The wall is falling, the wall is falling.”
