Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> mash a - r-e s3 4a r V atI o M'M 1M :S1 <br /> fleet f May IL 9 -8 , <br /> Comm i -s i one s Present: V, Louise Behrman , Gertrude Ferriday, Mary <br /> arsters, Carol Jacobson . <br /> 7: 00 - Wayne Tavares representing David Parsons . He advised the Order <br /> f Conditions care through with a different demarcation of where to <br /> put the wall and they are requesting a modification of the Order of <br /> Conditions. They are requesting to move the wall from the 40 foot con- <br /> tour within 3 feet of the shore with a subsequent need to remove two <br /> trees; one 8 inch oak and one lel inch pine. He read from a letter he <br /> wrote to the Commission and presented a revised plan taken from the <br /> original plan of All Cape Survey. <br /> Concerning the tiring of the wall , he stated as long as the condition <br /> of machinery and stockpiling does not occur below the 40 foot contour, <br /> an adequate area is left for ice storage, there should be no concern <br /> with the placement of the wall parallel to the shore and within 3 feet <br /> of the Mean Hish Dater line. If the wall is at the 40 foot contour, <br /> excessive a cavation is required with removal of more trees and in- <br /> volves more serious environmental impact to the pend with regard to <br /> sedimentation disturbance and artificial sand berm ing below the wall <br /> creating a beach effect. Setting the wall at the 40 foot contour <br /> creates such an artificial new pond edge as to have some negative <br /> effects with regard to sang accumulation and erosion of the abutting <br /> neighbors properties. The setback encompasses other existing trees <br /> with root elevation substantially higher than the 38 foot pond elev- <br /> ation requiring these trees to be removed as well . The pine and oak <br /> discussed are presently undermined and- are not providing as much stab- <br /> ilization <br /> tab- <br /> i1i ati n as the wall will provide. Three feet of ice storage will b <br /> provided. <br /> Ms Behrman questioned Mean High Water. Ir. Tavares stated they were <br /> using Mr. Costa' s tern for high water or existing water. He has <br /> observed a low water mark <br /> Mr. Tavares stated, if the wall was built at the 40 foot contour and <br /> they did not return the walls, then a situation would be created where <br /> the neighboring sides would erode . <br /> Ms Behrman stated there was nothing about taking down trees in the <br /> original Notice of Intent. Mr . Tavares stated it was not mentioned <br /> but it is a construction factor that had to be done. Ms Behrman stated <br /> it should be in a proper Notice of Intent. She stated she would have <br /> to be convinced that this wall is necessary to control erosion at the <br /> pond edge. . If the intent is to have sand below the wall , the sit- <br /> uation will be worse than it is now. Mr. Tavares stated the owner does <br /> not wish a beach and if the board wishes , they will revegetate it with <br /> pond material , if available . He stated the cross section of the wall <br /> is shown and pointed to the' material, to be excavated, <br /> Mrs. Ferriday asked why it had to be excavated and was told the wall <br /> is a retaining wall and that is the function. Mrs. Ferriday stated i t <br /> was not the original intent for anything to be excavated. <br /> Mr. Tavares stated Mr. Parsons property predates the 1978 Conservation <br />