9/8/1988 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission September 9, 1988 Page 5. items will be the distance from the bottom of the ocean to a surface of the ocean on a particular day at that time. They have no scientific comparable meaning. A long narrative is included about the physics of taking soundings and she recommended the Commission read this at their le. sure, She read from the first- page, the docks total length in- luding raftfloat would be lengthened to 70" from the Mean High Water. It Is now ' . Constraints proposed by All Cape Survey. were read. Mr. Rosenberg asked, don' t you have to go to the Board of Appeals with your proposal s Baylog stated. they are looking for an amendment, to briny in. a -amended. plan. It is still a le-gal issue.. I wanted to talk to. you before we goy- and. start all over again;. she stated' she-,wants. to know the ominsssio "s po-int of v-iew about the project- as designed now. It is still . n outstanding issue with the Board and whether or -not, the Board- of Appeals will accept the extension.. Mr. Bradshaw. stated, what we-' e done is design two plans- , one that was long which you recommended to shorten and had one that was. shor* eed. w would like to compromise and core up with sojeething, i :' he-a _ .dd4l-e- of the two. o-r anythIng; they mould like to cooperate with the Board. Mr. Rosenberg explained the problem: The existing plan does not re-.- quire a. varianc , it is within the ' size length limitation. Under the Bylaw, if you' re going over the 45' up to 70' , you have to f l- st get a variance from the Board of Appeals, you come into a whole new set of rules and the problem we have is, we can consider this plan but under the State statute , if there is a required application to the Board of Appeals, we can' t hear the matter until that' s been resolved. Mrs . Jacobson stated what we are finding is there' s much lower water than you had indicated when we went out there. Ms Baylog stated. right , but then you really need to read the physics. Mr. RosenberS stated. if you rant us to consider the ' -dock, -there has. to. be a new f i l ing wi th us and a new- f i I ins wi th DEE; you have the- Army Corps of Engineers; whatever you' ve done. Ms. Baylog stated, you could. never do that. I think maybe we should withdraw- our-- app l i c- atlon and re ub*it it. She was lookin-S for a feeling from the-- omn- i s i on as ta whether or not these conditions had any impact on your ability to accept this kind *f plan. That' s all she was looking for, an indication as to whether or not you recognize these as sitigating measures. Mrs. Jacobson asked what the original plan came in a . Mr. Bradshaw stated ' and that was turned down by. . .Ms Baylos stated no, we e-- submitted on behalf of the old Shellfish Wardengs recommendations. 1r•. Rosenberg asked i' than has gore through the Board of Appeals? Ms Baylog stated, they withdrew It bcuae he felt it was going to have a significant impact on the Shellfish because it was- so lon& and. now we' re looking at, l can't speak for the Shellfish Warden,- - b-ut you wanted deeper water for the shellfish and- l can understand that. Given the accretion of this area, changes of the salt marsh, l thine you' re definitely lookins at. Mr . Bradshaw asked what the Board would rec- ommend to do's Mr. Rosenberg stated we are not permitted by law to do that. The answer is, we can act on the present application; if you' re going with the newly proposed idea, there has to be a new application.