Laserfiche WebLink
Appleman claimed that the two additional trees were afro hazardous, however, no request was <br /> ever filed with the conservation department. <br /> 416/15 Violation notice sent to 91 Edgewater for unauthorized vegetation cutting near and on <br /> the inland bank, 2 additional trees removed in area immediately adjacent to existing platform <br /> and framing for platform addition observed. Agent informed Mr. Appleman that mitigation <br /> planting is required for the tree removal and vegetation cutting and to remove all framing from <br /> the platform extension. <br /> 3/2/16 Agent meets with Mr. Appleman at the property to go over mitigation planting plan and <br /> to inquire about an extension to the existing platform. Agent informs Mr. Appleman that he <br /> may file for an RDA for the extension but he must carry Out the mitigation prior to any extension <br /> construction if approved by the commission. <br /> 2112116 Mr. Appleman files for an RDA to request an addition to existing platform. Agent <br /> guides him through the process with the understanding that a mitigation planting plan must be <br /> presented, approved and implemented priorto any platform extension. Mr.Appleman received <br /> a negative determination for the platform extension with the condition of mitigation to be <br /> implemented prior to any work taking place. Mitigation was modified to include area of <br /> expanded platform. Agent met with Mr. and Mrs. Appleman at their property the following week <br /> to go over the mitigation requirements in detail Mitigation would require approximately 1000 <br /> square feet of space and be comprised of native shrubs per recommendation of the Agent. <br /> 3/28/16 Agent meets with Mrs. Appleman at the property (previously scheduled by Mr. <br /> Appleman) to go over the mitigation requirements and answer questions about square footage <br /> of mitigation area as well as plant species. Upon inspection of the proposed mitigation area, <br /> Agent observed 3 more cut trees, all directly on the inland bank leading to Santuit Pond. Agent <br /> asked about tree removal and Mrs. Appleman assumed it was her husband who conducted <br /> the cutting. There was no request/approval for this most recent tree removal. Agent informed <br /> Mrs. Appleman that a fine will be issued for this cutting. The Agent completed the flagging for <br /> the mitigation area. <br /> 3/28/16 Upon consideration of the most recent clearing of trees directly on the inland bank <br /> and the past violations that have occurred within wetlands jurisdiction on the property at 91 <br /> Edgewater, the Agent drafted a violation notice to the homeowners. The violation notice <br /> addresses the most recent cutting of trees on the property as well as this jurisdiction under the <br /> Chapter 172 bylaw. The notice stipulates that the Agent will be recommending a revocation <br /> of the most recently approved RDA permit for the platform extension as well as a requirement <br /> of the homeowner to hire a professional landscaper with qualifications acceptable to the <br /> commission to carry out an approved mitigation planting scheme to compensate for the loss <br /> of several trees and native shrubs on the property, all of which occurred directly on the inland <br /> bank or within 100 feet of the top of inland bank on the property. Lastly, the letter makes <br /> reference to a fine of no more than $300 for the most recent tree cutting. The violation letter <br /> cites that there shall be a public meeting of the Conservation Commission on April 281' during <br /> which the Agent will recommend that the commission revoke the existing RDA permit (as <br /> authorized in Chapter 172-7 Permits; Determinations and Conditions, Section D: For good <br /> cause, the Commission may revoke or modify a permit issued under this chapter after public <br /> notice and a public notice and a public hearing and notice to the holder of the permit. The time <br /> requirements under 172-5 shall be applicable") <br /> The Agent pointed out there was no effort made to contact the office whatsoever and he had <br /> no chance to inspect the property because the office was not notified. He said the first thing <br /> would be to issue an enforcement order with timelines, typically 30 days for submission of an <br />