Manchester conservation board puts the 136 apartment School Street hearing off to Nov. 24 and asks the sailing association for more paperwork on its new docks

The Manchester-by-the-Sea Conservation Commission on Wednesday, Nov. 4, put off its hearing on the 136 apartment building proposed off School Street to Nov. 24 at the applicant's request, and spent most of the evening on a smaller question: whether the Manchester Sailing Association can replace its three floating docks at Tucks Point with four larger ones. (Read our preview of the School Street hearing from October.)

What happened

• The School Street Notice of Intent and the Pine Street wetland boundary filing were both continued to Nov. 24, from the meeting video. (Read our Sept. 30 report on the Pine Street apartment plan.)
• The sailing association's dock plan was continued to Nov. 24 so the commission can see the full Army Corps of Engineers, state environmental and marine fisheries filings and get letters from the harbormaster and the shellfish warden. Members said they want screw in helical anchors, not concrete blocks.
• A 27 by 10 foot front porch at 64 Beach Street was cleared with conditions.
• A request to swap asphalt for pea stone under a deck at 7 Central Street, in the riverfront area, was continued to Nov. 24 so the Department of Public Works can check the asphalt depth and an old manhole.
• The commission approved 17 meeting dates for 2027.

The sailing association docks

The association's consultant said the three floats off 13 Tucks Point Road, on the water side of a private parcel the association uses by agreement, cover 3,995 square feet. The plan adds one float, for 4,675 square feet, and sets a reconfiguration zone for moorings. Blue mussel beds lie under the area, closed to harvesting, and the new layout moves almost all of the floats off them. The gap between the association's docks and the Manchester Yacht Club's would shrink from 130 feet to 96 feet; the yacht club asked for a wider fairway than the first design offered. The floats would sit at least 2 feet 7.5 inches above the mud at low water.

Vice Chair Henry Oettinger said the commission measures the impact as the whole float area, since anything floating shades the sea floor, not the 206 square feet the application counts for mooring blocks. He asked for the complete federal and state applications, a harbormaster letter on distances to the channel, other moorings and the 2027 dredging project, and a shellfish warden letter. He also noted that the Select Board accepted the town's harbor plan on Nov. 2 and that the town administrator is now setting priorities, with harbor capacity likely first. (Read what the Select Board did with the harbor plan.) Several members said they would rather wait for a capacity study before approving more float area, though all said the sailing program deserves high priority.

The association's treasurer said the docks have been in place since the 1990s without a permit, that the abutters and the yacht club support the plan, and that the larger floats are about room to move and safety for young sailors, not more boats. The association does not plan more powerboats and refuels them at a boatyard. It is a nonprofit and cannot afford soil testing for helical anchors up front, he said, but wants to use them; the commission said it would need to know in advance whether they will hold. The association hopes to have floats in by spring for the high school sailing team and its own May start, and before the town's dredging.

64 Beach Street porch

The homeowners want a 27 by 10 foot covered front porch on sonotube footings, in land subject to flooding, with a slatted skirt so water can pass under it. They have also agreed, under a separate special permit, to replace 445 square feet of driveway with pavers. Members asked how open the skirt would be; the base flood elevation there is 10 feet and the FEMA flood level 14, with the deck about 5 feet off the ground. The commission issued a negative determination, meaning the work can go ahead without a full Notice of Intent, with conditions set at the end of the meeting: the skirt must be at least 50 percent open, and no fuel, pesticides or fertilizer may be stored under the porch.

7 Central Street

The owners of the building at 7 Central Street, which their representative said dates to the 1600s, asked to pull up about 320 to 400 square feet of asphalt under a 1970s rear deck and lay pea stone, by hand because the deck is too low for machines. The work is in the riverfront area near the fire pond. Members asked about two pipes coming out of the building and a manhole cover in the photos, which the representative said date to a restaurant that once operated there. The chair said a job that close to the resource normally needs a Notice of Intent; other members said more information might settle it. The commission continued the request to Nov. 24 and asked the DPW to check the asphalt thickness and what the manhole and pipes connect to.

The representative also said a commissioner who abuts the property should not take part. Oettinger said he is not within 100 feet, and members noted the town's abutter list, generated by its online tool, does not include him.

Other business

• 2 Harold Street: The engineer for a rebuilt house in the riverfront area of Causeway Brook asked for a certificate of compliance. A 240 square foot deck was built that was not on the approved plan, and some restoration plantings did not survive under the pines. The commission told the owner to file for an amended order of conditions showing what was built, and said a partial certificate is possible while plantings are redone.
• 8 Blossom Lane: An applicant asked whether rebuilding a leaking 30 year old pool next to Singing Beach, with a new 250 square foot pool house and a larger deck, inside the no disturb and no build zones, could go through the shorter review. The commission said a full Notice of Intent is required.
• Rockwood Heights: An owner under an enforcement order over a driveway has until next week to act; the house is now for sale, and a member said a second enforcement order would be recorded if nothing is done.
• Peer review: A member counted 53 points in a peer reviewer's report on the stormwater design for a project before the commission. The peer reviewer and the applicant are due at the Nov. 24 meeting. A town official explained that commissioners may send questions through the conservation administrator but may not discuss the report among themselves outside a posted meeting.

What was decided

• 0 School Street, Notice of Intent for a 136 unit building: continued to Nov. 24 at the applicant's request, unanimous, from the meeting video.
• 0 Pine Street, wetland boundary filing by JAG Northeast Development Company LLC on Gordon College land: continued to Nov. 24 at the applicant's request, unanimous, from the meeting video.
• 13 Tucks Point, Manchester Sailing Association docks: continued to Nov. 24 pending the full applications and letters, unanimous, from the meeting video.
• 64 Beach Street porch: negative determination with conditions, unanimous, from the meeting video.
• 7 Central Street asphalt removal: continued to Nov. 24 pending DPW information, unanimous, from the meeting video.
• 2027 meeting schedule, 17 meetings about every three weeks starting Jan. 5: approved, unanimous, from the meeting video.

What happens next

• Tuesday, Nov. 24, the commission's next meeting (time on the agenda when posted): the School Street, Pine Street, Tucks Point and Central Street items return, and the peer reviewer attends.
• The commission's 2027 dates will be posted on the town's Agenda Center.

Where to find the records

• Amended agenda, Nov. 4
• Meeting video, on the town's YouTube channel
• Conservation Commission page and the Agenda Center, where minutes are posted when approved

Earlier coverage: Before Manchester's boards meet: a hearing on 136 apartments off School Street (Oct. 12); Manchester sends housing plan to the state, hears smaller Pine Street apartment plan (Sept. 30); Manchester accepts its harbor plan as a working document (Nov. 4).

How we did this: Cape Ann Current watched the meeting online and checked names against the agenda and the town's commission page. These are our meeting notes, not the commission's minutes.