Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 5 <br /> k � <br /> James: So in other words you are saying we should have requested a refiling? - <br /> Mr. ur Why? <br /> Mr. Reardon t I think we are talking perhaps, maybe, about two different things. Be- <br /> cause as 1 understand it from speaking to Mrs. Delory that the cease and desist order <br /> had to do with the placing of sand which came from the excavation onto grasses t and <br /> other vegetation for which there was no permit whatsoever which constitues a violation <br /> of the wetlands protection act because this was within the defined scope of the act <br /> f <br /> itself.. m I correct on that? <br /> Pauline: You are correct. <br /> . MurpYt We had asked to read the minutes of the meeting in which this matter Graz <br /> taken up and the only violation that was referred to in the minutes was. that the order <br /> of condition had not been extended. I asked the question: Was that the only violation <br /> to be concerned with and the answer was, yes, That being the case if that was the only <br /> violation that was before the commission before they issued the cease and desist order <br /> it is my opinion that there is no violation because the conditions have been satisfied <br /> over a one-year period and there is no need for further extension. <br /> Mr. Reardon t I thought the cease and desist order that I have in front of sae darted <br /> November 14 defines the extent of the fill on wetlands from excavation of a cellar <br /> hole for a- dwelling. The Conservation. Commission determine that this was within ap- <br /> parently <br /> -parently the defined area of protection. Quite apart from the order of conditions <br /> that were issued. This is a separate issue entirely. <br /> . Mur�hyi if that is the case them we are really not concerned with extending the <br /> order of conditions, if it is simply the fill on the wetlands them let's address l=*M <br /> selves to that. <br /> Mr. Reardon t If I ars not mita.kenp is this rely the heart of the concern of the con- <br /> servation commission as opposed -to the structure being built there because you issued <br /> permit or an order of conditions. You agreed apparently at the concept that was pre- <br /> sented to you in 1978. It is my- understanding that the issue noir is one of placing of <br /> fill On an area in which it should not have been placed. <br /> aul .net It was also suggested in the order of conditions that the house be turned <br /> around and has not. <br /> P. ur It was only a suggestion. That was referred to in architecture and it was <br /> considered and 1he house was re-orientated somewhat but there-were setbacks -impossible to <br /> turn the house aroundp In the opinion of the architect who worked very closely with the <br /> building inspector in revising the plot. Again, I runt to tell you that it was a sug-P, <br /> gest ion not a condition. But the suggestion was complied with aand ,we do have a letter <br /> which I would like to present at this time to make It part of the record. This is a <br /> letter from Death B. Gross, Eder, O'Collins Associates in. Lincoln, Ma. dated November 27g <br /> P addressed to Mr; Wm. Ferguson. Letter was read at this time and a copy of letter <br /> was handed to chairperson. So as I've stated the review made by the architect and the <br /> considerations that went into repositioning the building took place to the issuance of <br /> the building permit which was prior to September, 1978. <br />