11/8/1984 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mas hpe e Conservation C nmis iori Meeting of November 8, 1984 Page Four submit, therefore ,, that the order of Conditions that the Board has already issued would still apply and there would be no further need to come back before the Commission with a further Notice Of Intent . We would also submit and request that the Commission lift the Cease and Desist Order that has been imposed relating to the renovations of the structure and the proposed addition to the structure , it is y understanding and it has been elaborated upon in the written material submitted to the Board that the type of construction method being utilized,ed, the dismantling of the structure for the replacement of materials in light of changes in the code since that structure was in- iatia.11y built were discussed with the Building Inspector' s Office by the Contractor and it was , at that time , rec i n ende that because materials would have to be substituted in order to meet current codes dismantling of that structure would be the appropriate construction method to follow. " ' Attorney Kirrane continued, `ewe would submit that in accordance with the regulations that are applicable and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 131, Section 409 that structure , the existing structure , is , in its entirety, outside of the scope of the 1001 buffer overwhich the Commission has jurisdiction. I only ask that the Board consider lifting the Enforcement Order and allow us to proceed under the order of Condi- tions that were issued by the Board Mr. Tavares asked for clarification of Attorney Kirrane 's statement regarding Jurisdiction, Attorney Kir ane replied, "There is juris- diction over the 12' x 2' addition to that existing structure because the addition does fall within the so-called buffer. The structure , as it existed, the cottage , was totally outside of that particular buffer zone and unless the construction or the renovation of that existing cottage or the dismantling of the cottage or any type of construction method employed with respect to that existing cotta e directly, directly noir, not indirectly, directly affected the wetland emphatically them would be no jurisdiction in my opinion and based upon my understanding of the regulations and statutes . t is my understanding that there is row of cottages in front of this existing cottage that is the subject of these proceedings that orae- of those cottages has been mored or will be moved pursuant to a superseding order that was issued by DQE so the movement of that cottage that we're in in the same row behind the one that is much closer to the dune/bank than we are gage us indication that the mere substitution of the concrete foundation as opposed to cement block would not be a problem and was not such a significant change as to require us to come back to the Commission for purposes of seeking an additional Notice of Intent . 11 Mr. Tavares pointed out that it is the duty and the purpose of the Con- servation Commission to determine "significant change" in order to ful- fill their obligation to protect the wetlands . He further stated that t is therefore necessary and required that any changes be reported to the Commission for approval while in the contemplative stages not the constructural stages , He stated that it is expected that work will be performed as outlined in the Notice of Intent and as presented at public