Laserfiche WebLink
recent tree cutting. The violation letter cites that there shall be a public meeting of the <br /> Conservation Commission on April 28th during which the Agent will recommend that the <br /> commission revoke the existing RDA permit (as authorized in Chapter 172-7 Permits; <br /> Determinations and Conditions, Section D: "For good cause, the Commission may revoke <br /> or modify a permit issued under this chapter after public notice and a public notice and a <br /> public hearing and notice to the holder of the permit. The time requirements under 172-5 <br /> shall be applicable") <br /> The Agent pointed out there was no effort made to contact the office whatsoever and he <br /> had no chance to inspect the property because the office was not notified. He said the first <br /> thing would be to issue an enforcement order with timelines, typically 30 days for <br /> submission of an acceptable mitigation plan and 60 days for implementation. The violation <br /> notice stipulated that once the commission approved the extension of the deck platform the <br /> mitigation had to take place prior to that extension taking place. <br /> Mr. Appleman said he made a mistake but when he moved in there were a number of trees <br /> that had to come down and they were hitting the house. He did cut down two trees that <br /> were hazardous. I the future he will not do anything without permission. He asked they <br /> accept his apologies for his actions. It won't happen again. He said he was suppose to <br /> plant 90 shrubs and was hoping to plant 20 to 30 and then have the Agent inspect to see if <br /> they are doing it correctly. It was noted Mr. Appleman needs to have a formal plan. <br /> There was a discussion on how to remedy the situation. It was determined Mr. Appleman <br /> get a professional landscaper to develop a design for the mitigation plan. <br /> Mr. Appelman explained he cut the trees on the bank because one of them was cracking <br /> and the other was leaning and he stated he made a mistake and should have called the <br /> Agent. The Agent stated the reason he is asking for a revocation is due to the history of <br /> non-compliance which needs a formal vote. The Agent noted the office has a long list of <br /> professional landscapers, <br /> No comments from the public <br /> Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to revoke the permit, seconded by Mr. McKay. Vote <br /> unanimous 4-0 <br /> Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to assess the $300 fine, seconded by Mr. Anderson. Vote 2- <br /> 2 Mr. Anderson yes, Mr. Shaw, yes, Mr. Sweet, no Mr. McKay no. Motion does not <br /> pass. <br /> Motion: Mr. Shaw moved to require a landscape plan to be submitted within 30 days <br /> and executed within 60 days from the day the Agent issues the enforcement order by <br /> a professional landscaper. Seconded by Mr. McKay vote 4-0 <br /> The Agent said he would draft an enforcement order which would have specific timelines. <br /> Typically, 30 days for submission of plan and 60 days for work to be completed. <br /> The commissioners agreed that the plantings could be inspected by the Agent in <br /> increments. The Agent summed up to Mr. Appleman. He will be issued an enforcement <br /> order with strict timelines as,to when you should choose a contractor that is qualified. The <br /> enforcement order will also have a timeline on the completion of the project. It is up to Mr. <br /> Appleman whether he wants a contractor to do the planting or if he wants to do it himself. <br />