2/21/1991 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission February 21, 1991 Page 3. MARK HOWLAND, ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH: I have talked to DFP in Boston and they have not issued a formal written standing on that because it has not come up before legal counsel at this time but they are extremely concerned that there are several engineered sets of calculations that do not show it to be an isolated Land subject to flooding and all there is is a letter of opinion from the DEP agent with no calculations that the state says it is. What would you expect the Board to do They have a superseding deter- mination saying it is, would you expect the commission to disagree with the state? O : The superseding decision is not on the lot in question. But the determination does say it spills down into the lower lot which is the lot in question. HOED: l know with my comma-s ion, they got in trouble for using decisions from one lot to another lot. SIMMONS: We cannot go from one commission to another, HO LAi D: You cannot go from one lot to another either. The superseding determination did do that. SIMMONS: Because the drainage does go into this second lot. ANN MARIE PLSN : At the last meeting this issue was raised and l thought that was the reason we were having this hearing because I thought the chairman said he was going to take this as a ,separate issue; he brought that up about the other lot and it was left that we were going to bring all the calculations in and the commission would make a decision. SIMMONS: No, not that the Commission would make a decision, that they were going to bring in the calcs* . . . . IM. P LSON : And you were going to male decision. ) S e still haven't been presented with calculations for the Isolated land subject to flooding at this point, these calcs by Mr. Cooley are on vernal pools. On the question of whether or not it is isolated land subject toflood- ing, the comussion still has a superseding determination from DEP stating it is. If you present something that argues against that, the commission would have to take it under considerationbut the commission has not received those calculations. If talking about vernal pools, and we have been for 15 minutes, under the state regulations, if it is a venial pool, it has to be part of bordering land subject to flooding; this is not the case, obviously, or pant of isolated land subject to flooding. By the very fact the very possibility of a vernal pool is being discussed, it seems it must be isolated land subject to flooding. LOWLAND; Not necessarily under your bylaw though. S : Agreed. Under our bylaw it does not have to be.