7/16/1992 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission July 16, 1992 Public Hearing - Page 3. Mr. Sherman stated, in accordance with the bylaw, the Commission holds a public hearing to take input and then enacts regulations. These regulations have been evolving over the past three years. There was a problem with the copy machines and some information was not available. Those present were told they would be available in the Conservation office from the next morning on. The Regulations most people were concerned about were avail- able now. DOCKS & Pte: Those that have not gone through filing require identification. Now, many people have been getting Chapter 91 and are using that number. The regulation is being changed to allow that number to be used. Mr. Sherman asked if there were any questions on this proposed change, there were none. WnDLIFE EABAMT EVALUATION R (172-12 of the Bylaw, Reg. 20--A The Cor - ission is unpowered, when a certain amount of threshold is altered, to require an evaluation. Mr. Sherman listed the interest . This provision has only been invoked two times, for Maushop and one other. #17. Mr, Sherman urged anyone who is eligible to obtain Chapter 91 immediately. 17-a. Has been in existence for some time. The Commission is trying to cut people_ some slack. . #12. Any request for an Amended order of Conditions shall be filed in compliance with the Regulations, including submittal requirements, as they exist at the time o such request. Section 172-12. . of the Bylaw re consultant services: Section being added asks people if the Commission does invoke a consultant, that if they have any questions, they be fur elle l through the Commission. Under the bylaw, the applicant pays for the consultant, Mr. Desrosiers pointed out it avoids misconceptions, to be sure there are no problems that arise. Mr. Sherman stated if the applicant would want to speak to the consultant, the Comm-� fission would arrange a meeting* Anthony Fiorenti i stated he did not buy this. Ms kik stated it is- the Comnission's decision whether or not the consultant should be hired and the applicant pays for the consultant. It is for the purpose of giving the Commission the information needed to make a decision. The issue is we want clarification on certain issues. The purpose is to allow in one fom and one place to hear all the requests, Mr. Sherman advised the reason the article was put forth is the Commission gets some Complicated projects, the proponent should bear the cost. He cited the Maushop re- ve toren t. Tim Conery: You do not want the owner to meet independently with the consultant? Would it not be fir for the Commission to not meet with the consultant independently? I am saying conversely that the home owner b notified and be present to meet with the consul tant. Mr. Sherman stated it is usual to meet with the consultant in a public hearing. r