5/21/1992 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Inas Conservation Commission � May 21, 1992 Page 3. Mr. McGrath stated he has the right to license the 8 x 20 float; the Commission only has rights for two years. Mr. Sherman stated that was not correct under the Grant Decision; there is no statute of ltation. Mr. McGrath argued they should have the right to Maintain the float that was, there for so many years. Mr. Sherman stated the new shellfish warden did not like the size of the proposed float and the affect of light loss. �k. McGrath stated water depth is -112 to 4 feet deep. Asked if that is the case where the boat is docked, he stated he was there in the winter when the water was turbid, He further stated land contain ng shellfish would no continue -to where the boat is docked. He was told the Commission would have to know the exact draft of the boat. Nr., McGrath stated he would obtain this and asked to continue to after the Board of Appeals hearing. Mr. Sherman stated the Commission should have additional studies, if they see fit. It is a privilege to have a boat and dock, not a right. Mr. Coffey asked if there was any marine interest in having a 12' x 24' float Mr. McGrath stated there was none. He would ask for a continuance, If required to hire a marine biologist, he will. Mr. Coffey asked what would happen to the pilings' They would be as shown on the license plan. A copy of the original license plan was requested.. It was noted two pilings were permitted. Mr. Sherman advised another issue is that fir. McGrath came in with a septic repair which was erm.�ttd. However, patio work/brick work, etc. , was clone feet from the coastal bank. There are things going on now that should have been brought to our attention. He asked if the commission wanted an as built to show the brick wall and driveway work. Ms Larwdk stated the Com i s s i n should have it for the future. Mr. McGrath agreed. The issues are shellfish impacts, between now and what is proposed; how many pilings pulled; how accomplished. The contractor was not cited or fined. TO JEM 259 1992 AT 8:20 p.m. 7:30 NEW SEABURY CO., for the removal of debris and proposed revegetation at loo Mid Iron- Way. Michael Grotzke presenting. This' was the site of the dumping of debris from the Popponesset Cottages. Mr. Sherman suggested they move the material, rake the slope and seed with wild- life seeding; let nature take its course. He has no objection to the proposal.. survey plan is not needed as long as the owners agree that the Commission will. have final approval as to how done. Mr. Grotzke stated the area was used as a lay down area. It is the only site lar g enough for this purpose. It was an error on f p� the part o e construction team.