9/30/1986 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Informational Meeting September 30, 1986 Page . cG. continued - from that you do it in regulations by g i -i ng automatic approva l to a category of limited prof ctc. i-e, moorings, seasonal replacement of docks-, etc. , with restrictions such as replacement by hand. A. Fiorentini stated he sees a conflict with the Harbormaster who has s i m i l-a r language for all floating items.' L. Behrman: This can be defined under the regulations. This gives us a say In the wetlands impact of something floating in the water. Bill 1c ay: Re annual maintenance of growth, this should be put on the list of 1 inn i ted yearly maintenance. L. Behrman: When it is part of the application, i t i.'s considered as part of the Order of Conditions and can be Written i n. B.MKay: Can .I go -within the 100 feet and d'o the yearly 'ma-i ntenan a? Behrman: -I.f no i gn.i f i cart-Teff ct on. the resource area,) suppose It had the effect you' could -see any Douse? Ge.ftl ng. back to the ' beg i ren i ng, we' re talking aesthetics. Wi 1.1 you ..continue, as-you have, { to al low- people in a reasonably flat land, not subject of erosion, to mow once- a year or will your tighten that up to require applications? This will be properly discussed by the' Comm i s s i on, irf we get to the poi n t of be i n able to write those regs,, . cG: I have never seen this defined in the bylaw, guidelines or reg s. It would be determined by the town. In my opinion, l ega 1 1 , if the Commission chose to reg- ulate egulato work for aesthetic reasons it ou l d'' have to do so together with other reasons under the bylaw. They could not prohibit work solely for aesthetic reasons. Vernon Thomas: Homeowners are required in Falmouth to go before the Conservation for perm i s s i on to cut the grass if they l M ve near the water. .Mc : A seasonal or multi-year permit is possible for recurring work. This is in under the section 4.3.7, paragraph 3. ifyou are going to do what you did before and the lawn is already i n i t is not subject. P. F'antoz i : Under H Destruction of Punt life including cutting of trees, Would Arun i ng and 1 tmb i ng be a l l owed? . 'des, there is no impact at al I . Q. P. ' I~an toz i : Has the Commission given any consideration for specifying within its bylaw its appeal time frame because a l though no appeal might fall under the general bylaw appeal process there may be times the applicant might want to appeal a Determination of Applicability. G.McG: Yes , it has been considered, but no, i t is nor in there because it makes no difference,, it is 60 days and it is to the Superior Court. That is state statute. P. Fantozzi ; If the Commission is going to feel free to discuss lim'rted projects, could they also come up legally with an appeal process for a Determination of Jppl icabi l i t within the town. G. c : Everything the Commission does is. appealable tou er or, p Court eves a Determination of Applicability, r just going too long.