Laserfiche WebLink
r Mashpe a Conservation Commission <br /> Meeting of November 7. 1985 <br /> Page Eight <br /> mitten and issued for this particular project , for the vegetation, <br /> and it was not followed, It was not complied with. She said, "In <br /> fact, it happens to be one that we follow specifically for similar <br /> projects ,. " <br /> Ms . Collins asked, "In ghat respect?" <br /> Chairman duPont re plied, " The total plan wasn't done correctly. <br /> It just wasn' t followed. It was not planted properly, it was not <br /> maintained - all of that - so there is an existing order of Condi- <br /> tions that was not complied with and I think that's why you got <br /> the slumping in the vegetation." <br /> MS. Collins said, "1 think we would like , in writing, specifically, <br /> how it was not followed because I think that the applicant feels that <br /> it was . " <br /> Nor. Berkowitz stated that he was certain that the previous Order -had <br /> been followed, <br /> s . duPont stated that it had not been, that a lot of thought and <br /> research had gene into writing that specific order because of the <br /> precarious situation, <br /> Ir. Berkowitz said that a lot of time , money and effort has been <br /> expended into stabilizing the bank naturally and until the last storm <br /> it was doing fairy well, <br /> duPont said that the previous order of Conditions had specifically <br /> ordered that the bank be hay-baled and snow-fenced between the Fall <br /> and spring every year -- regularly. Mr. Berkowitz felt that this had <br /> been complied with. <br /> Chairman duPont stated that if the applicant had come to the Commission <br /> requesting a Certificate of Compliance , it would have been denied <br /> because the project had not been carried out as ordered. She further <br /> stated that the Board had been waiting for such request and was rather <br /> surprised that no request for Certificate of Compliance had been <br /> f rth oming, <br /> The Chairman said that w rke ns on the project had been informed that <br /> the work was not being performed in accordance with the orders of <br /> Conditions . Mr. Berkowitz contends that even as this may be so, he , <br /> s the owner, was not informed- and could not then take corrective <br /> measures on his own behalf. Mr. Rosenberg pointed out that the order <br /> of Conditions states quite clearly that when the work has been com- <br /> pleted, a. Certificate of Compliance must be requested which ascertains <br /> that conditions have been fulfilled. The burden of compliance is on <br /> the applicant, <br />