Laserfiche WebLink
} Conservation Corission <br /> November 15, 1990 <br /> Page 9. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated this has been a serious situation causing a great deal of convent <br /> from Townspeople. The applicant should be aware that legally the commission could <br /> require him to file a Notice of Intent on the property from. which he embarked with <br /> the front end loader. In choosing not to do that they have shown leniency and an <br /> appropriate response on' his part for the potential damage would be appreciated. <br /> The front end loader ran through (Fish & Wildlife were contacted and agreed) what <br /> was the height of the spawning season for Bluegill and Bass, which spawn in those <br /> areas at that depth. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated the Commission is faced with a problem when something is done <br /> which would create more of an impact undoing. , He would personally have a problem <br /> leaving all the glistening sand there for enjoyment for future years, because of <br /> the way it was done. He stated he does not know what to do and asked Mr. Vining <br /> for suggestions. <br /> Ir. Vining replied that to remove the sand would probably cause as much problem as <br /> the delivery. 1t was done and can't be undone. if there is anything he can do to <br /> compensate, he likes to fish and would not have driven over spawning fish if he had <br /> known and is at the mere of the board. Knowing what he knows now, he would be <br /> incensed also <br /> Ms Behrman pointed out in the Notice of Intent, site description, natural features, <br /> public and private surface waters has been checked off as not applicable. There is <br /> public surface water there. Going down to plan view and cross section, there is <br /> filling, including volume and composition of material checked off as N/A, she feels <br /> there is fill. Compensatory storage areas where required in accordance with part <br />� p � g <br /> also checked N/A and it is qu2.te possible there should be compensatory storage areas <br /> here. Also, the question raised by the agent about wildlife habitat restoration or <br /> replication should be addressed. <br /> Mr. Coffey stated the impact is there and done; he asked for the Commission's <br /> thoughts. <br /> Mr. shemmn asked if Mr. Vining was receptive to doing something to reni edi to the <br /> damage done and Mr. Vining stated he was open to all suggestions. Mr, Sherman <br /> advised Fish & wildlife suggested Mr. Vining consider funding the printing and <br /> dissemination of an informational brochure to waterfront owners on John's Fond. <br /> There are approximately 180 waterfront abutters. <br /> 'fir. Vining stated he would be glad to sponsor an article in the newspaper if <br /> monetary value can be identified; not just for people on the pond because the <br /> usage goes further. Be it an ad, or a brochure, he felt sure an agreement can be <br /> reached. <br /> Mr. Desrosiers suggested a number of brochures to provided to associations around <br /> the pond for their members who have access to the waterfront. <br /> Mrs. Jacobson stated if a decision is made to go with a brochure, there are 3 - + <br /> associations on the pond. <br /> Ms Lannik expressed concerti about the precedent and the sand; what the sand has <br /> done and what if it is removed? <br /> Mr. Vining stated his sand is no different than that of the people who got a permit. <br /> It was bought from, Landers; it is washed sand and was recommended as the sand sold <br /> to everyone who gets a permit. The sand was put down without a perrAt and is n <br /> different than the sand put clown with a permit. Unless there is going to be a <br /> public tar and feathering, the precedent this set is no more offensive than the <br /> boat that speeds by and everyone now has the right to speed. The sand was put <br />