11/01/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

14ash ee Conservation Co mssion November 1, 1990 Page 2. Mr, Sherman asked Ms Lannik'sopinion and she agreed there should be a bearing t et it into the record that at is a scrivener's error. Mr. Hayes agreed this would be acceptable. Mir. aY es further advised he will be coming before the conmAssion with a Notice of Intent for Mort Nest. DEP stated they cannot issue a superseding order Without an E F and recommended to Mr. West and the Commission that a third notice be pres- ented to the Commission. Based on that information, he has no choice but to core before the CoRmssion•, he also has to do the ENF. if the Commission and Mr. west can agree that he can have this for three months, then a state permit is not re- quired. He will also be before the Commission for Tide watch Condo Trust revetment repair with a Notice of Intent. W. Sherman advised he told Mr. Hayes he has asked Chapter 91, DEP, for a clarif- ic tion of when you connect a legal 10A float, what is required -l.n terms of the Wetlands Act? Mr. Hayes agreed that is reasonable and correct. 7:30 ANTONIO Horseshoe Bend Way, continued hearing. Mr. P .lsone was present but no one appeared from Benchmark Engineering to represent him. Mr. Sherman advised there was a superseding order of conditions on the adjacent lot which is still in the adjudicatory process. It is clear the project does fall under the new regulations; Town Counsel. concurs. He felt the hearing should be continued. Mr. P l one advised he checked with the court and was told the date of the postmark governs the filing and his preceded the new relations. . Sherman stated that sloes not apply under the Mashpee bylaw which is the date received by the Commission. Mr. Coffey explained there is a hearing held under the state and town bylaw. It is ssibl.e to end up with a decision yes under one and no under the other, or hold him po to different requirement s. Mr. Sherman advised on the lot north of Mr. Pul one#s, there was illegal fill placed which was the subject of a determination. The COMMILssion denied it and considered the land to be land subject to flooding. There was a superseding decision indicating that lot would spill over into Mr. Pu.lsonets lot and the whole area is land subject to flooding. It is still in the adjudicatory process; it has not been overturned, it is binding at the moment. There are legal interpretation problems. Mr. Coffey asked if Mr. Plsone would like to continue the hearing as he is without his expert and Mr. Pul s one stated he would. CUNTINUED TO DECEMM 13, 1990 - 7:45 p.m. As it is relevant to the next hearing, Mr. Sharman advised the conmssion the current defined top of the coastal bank is the top of the face of the bank slope above the 10 year flood plain elevation. A determination is near on Bufflehead Bay; experts have determined the top of the bank. At the. MACC workshop he attended on Saturday, Jim C'Connell of CZM gave him copies of a final draft, the policy the Task Force will use which is already in use by DEP-SE although not an official policy. Other comnussions are using it. It is his intent to ask the commission to adopt it as a tentative policy. The commission i s regulation does not allude to specific slope ratios.