1/17/1991 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission January 1 , 1991 Page 3. Mr. Coffey asked how much difference there i Mr. Grotzke could not say at this point. fir. Coffey asked if there is an elevation difference of three-quarters of a foot across that topo; is he talking 5 feet in the buffer zone? Mr. Grotzke has not done the calculations but was not happy with the way it was done so tried to find out what the process was so he could deterrune whether it was done correctly. It is a fairly new issue for a lot of consultants., as well as for con servation commissions, in determining vernal pools. His concern is not so much for the vernal pool here as for using proper methodology in determining a vernal. pool. There will be other vernal pools, maybe in New seabury and other parts of the town. It would not be a very good idea to set a precedent in using an incomplete approach, but, it would be a good idea to use a complete approach using 310 CMR. � Mr. Sherman stated in certifying .a vernal pool., there is nothing incumbent upon us to determine a boundary at that time. Mr. York agreed. Mir. Grotzke stated, but you defined this as a boundary* Mr. Sherman stated he has not defined anything as a boundary, that area was defined as a vernal pool. The regs say what the boundary is and if the boundary is that which is set by Fish & wildlife, if they seta boundary, and if they don't it's based upon the engineering oaks. Mr. Grotzke stated, if we're going to discuss vernal pools, we have to know where the boundary is. Mr. Sherman stated Grotzke was alluding that it was our duty to do so, he does not believe it was. Mr. Grotzke stated the implication here is this defines the vernal pool.. Mr. Sherman stated he did not make any implications; just said the area is a vernal pool. He advised the determination of boundaries was awaiting some actual filing for a project proposed. It is premature and inaccurate to say we should have determined the boundary; that's not part of getting the vernal pool certified to establish the species that are there, which is what was- done and it is assumed they will be coming back with a filing and then we could sit down to talk about where the boundary is. Mr. Grotke stated what they had hoped for, in fact the purpose for this whole pro- cess of redefining of the resource acre, is so they know exactly where the boundaries are. without knowing the boundaries, there is no point in coming before the board in a pre-plaming stage. Mr. Sherman stated it is clear to him, unless someone feels he is in error, the vernal pool certification was clone prior to determining any boundaries and was not intended to determine boundaries, so it is a proper natter for putting on the table. He does not think it proper to say we should have done it at the time. Mr. Coffey stated the comnussion does not have the expertise, in house, to do the engineering calculations appropriately, nor where the burden of proof is on the applicant is it anything we should do. If there is a substantial question about computations, we would want to engage our own consultant to double-check what is submitted. He would not question Mr. Grotzke double-checking Hayes calculations. As a builder in the field, he would question how accurate those topos on the plan are. If an area -is certified as a vernal pool, it is a very special habitat and worthy of special consideration. He would dope, whether two feet or ten feet, buffer zone to the plus, that's a question that a responsible applicant would understand the importance of the area. Is there concern enough about the matter being discussed, the number hasn't been put on, or is it strictly methodology? If we are looking for the true elevation of the vernal pool to then establish the 100 foot buffer, the plus or minus haree�quarters of a foot in elevation that the