01/25/1990 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

z Conservation Commission January 25, 1990 Page 2. The location of Mr. Franchils float and dock is shown; there are no floats on the other side and no interference with traffic in Popponesset Bay. The new plan is a solution to a number of questions and problems. Mr. Coffey mored that the revised plan be accepted. Ms Behrman seconded. Ms Seh rrnan asked if Board of Appeals took formal action and was told it was taken under advisement. Mr. -an i ck i advised Mr. Somery i l l e' s comments and recommendations were well understood and justified. his Behrman stated the hearing would have to be continued until the Board of Appeal 's decision to consider the application complete. Paul Somerville,, Shellfish Warden, stated the new plan reflects suggestions he rade at Zoning Board of Appeals. The float was causing a problem with shell- fish, hell- fishy, as well as rubbing against the edge of the marsh. VOTE: Motion carried to accept the plans presented. letter to be sent to Board of Appeals expressing approval of the revised plan. Mr. Sanicki , in answer to a question of an increase in the size of boats, stated if a .larger boat than the present 27 ft, boat is purchased, Mr.. os ow i t i l l be back before the Commission with a proposal for a different configuration. . Coffey pointed out a "T" float in this instance and in the future would do away with those concerns. Mr, San i c i questioned whether the commission would allow such a lengthy "T" to allow two boats to be moored. 1r. Burns pointed out this would be up to the corps of Engineers. Mr. Coffey 'asked Mr. San i c k i to correct the "Plural" on floats on the plan and also to indicate distance of float from Mean Low Water. Mrs. Simmons asked for% the d i stances between floats. r. Sa n i cki agreed to provide a supplement. James Kobe,- attorney for Dominic Franch i , came before the Commission to present copies of an aff davit. It is their contention- that statements that the dock is existing and has been grandfathered by ACOE are not true. He referred to a letter from an agent to ALOE stating they were only repairing, not extending, which they accepted. Mr. Sherman, at a later date, informed ACOS the dock had been extended by 20 ft. and ACOE now feels a permit is needed; also, Chapter 91 is now required. Utters from D.E.Q.E. to Mr, Moskowitz stated the dock extension is improper and a license should be applied for. The result is that it is not an existing dock; it was changed in violation of regulations in 1988. Piles were driven and floats added affecting land containing shellfish and coastal bank. The Notice of Intent does not discuss environmental issues. He suggested the permit should be denied until environmental evidence is received. The Notice of Intent stated they do not intend to apply for a state permit but fir. Sanicki stated they do; this should be cleared up.