4/4/1991 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission April +, 1991 'age 1 . Mr. Butler advised under the bid process a cash offer is required, no contingencies, and there is a 10% non-refundable deposit. He is certain there will be a successful bidder. They are selling without warranty and representation; they are providing title insurance policy.. Ms Behrman stated the commission, and any other town board, should remember the buyer could be bidding on this and be unaware. In other words, "'Buyer Beware#'. Mr. Butler stated they will be staying on the project until closingand after closing. They have dealt with 20 - 30 interested parties. It was agreed to schedule the site visl.t for May 12 - 10:00 a.m. VOM: Motion rade and seconded to extend the order of Conditions sixty days beyond the expiration date. :W STEEHM F, COLELIA, 36 Bayview load, continued from March 7. A letter from the Consultant/Arborist was read into the record. Mr. Colella agreed with the suggestions and asked if haybales will be necessary? Mr. Sherman requested the right to monitor plantings for two gears. This was agreed. OTE: Motion made and seconded to close the hearing. HEARIM CLOSED, 8:15 WCHAEL 69 games Circle, continued from March 7. Bob Raymond and Michael Vining presenting. The matter of the settlement has been -resolved. A license will be sought for the existing seasonal dock. Mr. Sherman advised the commssion will be asked to present input to Chapter 91 and DEP. It was suggested lair. Vining withdraw the dock portion of his application to the Commission. To be referenced in the order of Conditions that Mr. Vining gave the cor' fission a letter at the hearing requesting the clock be withdrawn. VUIE: Motion made and seconded to close the hearing. EEA .. 30 - QST, 70 Triton way, continued from March 7, 1991. Michael McGrath presenting. Issues raised in the initial hearing were addressed re a double layered wall vs single wall construction proposed; an on-site with DBP to look at the coastal bank; clearing line; beach nourishment. A letter was filed with the Cormaission. Friday accompanied by photo ' phs and revised plan. IIS GAEL: Mainly single layer revetments are in the area. Double would be an undue expense and is not required. DEP o -SITE: haves were breaking over the intervening bank but were not �reak .ng against this lot. It has a stoney beach. The purpose of the on-site was to ascertain from DBP whether beach nourishment is necessary. It is not required when the house i existing but if the commission finds it i a suitable mitigation ease, the commission can impose it.