Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> Meeting f February 25, 1988 <br /> Page 4. <br /> -Bhrman stated it also fluctuates because of rainfall ; it is not <br /> purely because of the dams. If you had a river flowing out of that, <br /> completely unregulated, you' d still have a drastic fluctuation. She <br /> requested this be on the record. <br /> Mr. Howland stated most ponds , if unregulated, average l - 1-1 ft. <br /> -d,ierence in elevation just from rainfall . his Behrman stated, normal <br /> rainfall , witho t major storms, without 100 year floods or hurricanes <br /> Mr. Howland stated with 100 year flood, you would get as much as <br /> foot difference. <br /> Ms Behrman stated elevations are needed . The low water mark was <br /> observed on the surer -y but there. is, an existing water mark. Wr. <br /> Howland stated the only, important mark is the elevation recorded .for <br /> Johns Pond , the 38 ft'.} <br /> Ms Behrman requesuAthe 38 ft . be labeled as such on a stamped plan as <br /> this is being stated as the average water level ; median water level o f <br /> the pond. It is proposed to pct the wall just about down on the median <br /> water level . <br /> Mrs. Ferriday stated with a 2 ft. fluctuation, the water will be over <br /> the top of the wall , such as occurred last spring. Mr. Howland stated <br /> there has not been a 100 year flood since 1969, that was about a 1 <br /> year flood. . <br /> Ms Behrman stated an aggravated situation is being caused and <br /> expressed concern with da a e being shunted onto abutting property , <br /> There is 6" of footing under the wall , per plans. A not uncommon in- <br /> crease of water level will bring it up over the top of the wall and it <br /> will go flat on its face and allow silt to wash into the pond. <br /> .Mr. Howland stated it is a better situation than what is there now. <br /> Under -the original order -of conditions it includes for erosion and <br /> maintenance control . Leaving it the way it is now, it is erroneous of <br /> the Board to issue a Certificate of Compliance when there never was a <br /> vegetative cover put on that property as issued in the original order <br /> of conditions. There never was any provision made for erosion control . <br /> This is an effort by the homeowners to satisfy the original order of ; <br /> conditions even though the Board did issue a Certificate o <br /> Compliance. As an environmentalist, he 'is not looking at this from a <br /> homeowner' s point of view, this is somethiAS that really needs to be <br /> done to protect the erosion control of the property. To .heave it the <br /> way it' is now is to do *ore damage than to do something. <br /> Ms Behrman read from the original order of conditions: All disturbed <br /> areas shoal l 'be reveSetated. Mr. Howland stated it never was and a <br /> Certificate of Compliance was issued. Ms Behrman stated she did not <br /> see any unveetaed' disturbed areas down there. <br /> Mr. Howland stated there is a standard thing in Coastal Zone <br /> Management which he has seen in eatery ConCom on the cape when there <br /> are certain wetland species supposed to be within at least 15 feet <br /> from any coastal bank to establish a vegetative cover. <br />