Laserfiche WebLink
She noted the shellfish grant has been under existence for many years and is under <br />renewal until 2027. She reviewed photos of the bridge that is being proposed going <br />through the shellfish area. Rebecca said they learned about the third report that was <br />submitted and they don't have that report in their possession and requested they have <br />the opportunity to submit an additional report in response. She referred to the meeting <br />Tuesday afternoon with the applicant, town counsel, Mr. McManus as well as BSC. The <br />tribe was invited and then disinvited. They were advised the meeting wasn't going to <br />have substantive discussion merely procedural. She said what the Commissioners have <br />before them is findings to give them ample information to deny the application. This <br />application has been going on for 10 months. There are various materials submitted by <br />the applicant that they would like to look closely at. They are hoping to have Bob <br />Sherman, the former conservation agent speak. Rebecca commented the applicant is <br />trying to have it both ways. Anyway you look at, this project should be denied. Is it <br />water dependent or not water dependent? The Chair commented he was really shocked <br />at the beginning of the hearing that they were trying to make it water dependent by. <br />making changes to the design to allow for pedestrian access. Rebecca thanked him for <br />expressing that. She noted the access point is under litigation by the abutters and by <br />the town attorney. She stated the town attorney did recommend that it was not water <br />dependent. The Agent stated for the record the Commission has not taken a position on <br />this as of yet. She requested a copy of the third report. The Agent commented the third <br />report was essentially the blending of the two reports previously submitted. It was <br />simply for the readability for the conservation Commission. There was no change in the <br />content, it was format with the same information. Rebecca cited 310 CMR 105 which <br />refers to an incomplete application. <br />Bob Sherman, former conservation agent, said his main focus is under chapter 172. In <br />his opinion, what has been submitted so far falls far short as far as satisfying chapter <br />172 which is corroborated by Ms. Ball's report from Horsley Witten's and the January 6 <br />letter from Mr. Green to which he attended some significant information regarding wildlife <br />habitat. The BSC peer report also corroborates that many regulations of 172 are not <br />met. He mentioned there are triggers within the requirements that trigger wildlife <br />evaluations which have not been addressed. Of particular importance is land subject to <br />coastal storm flowage. Several things require buffer strips which are not provided for in <br />the plan. There should to be a plan showing a delineated area of natural vegetation and <br />an analysis which has not been done. There are significant issues and in his opinion it <br />would be significantly difficult to satisfy all of those problems even with submittal of more <br />information. He disagreed with the BSC Group that submittal of more information would <br />fix everything. <br />Bob Daler, Senior Vice President of Tetra Tech, he agreed with BSC's determination <br />that the project is not water dependent, that the project does not meet the performance <br />standards and the plans are incomplete. The reason that the water dependency is such <br />an important task is that in the blue space between the island and the main land that <br />belongs to the public. The public has every right to pass on that water: walk on the <br />bottom, swim in it and that Is why it is held in public trust. If the public lands on the shore <br />and walks in the intertidal zone, they may pass on the intertidal zone. That is why it is <br />trust lands. That blue space (water) is held in trust for the public. That bridge interferes <br />with the public rights. He read from CMR 310 953, Activation of Commonwealth Tidal <br />Lands for the Public Use which is the requirement for non dependent use projects. He <br />repeated it is not water dependent and they can't get a license for it so there is no <br />purpose continuing this hearing for something they cannot get. He said he would hope <br />