8/24/1989 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

i August 24, 1989 Proposed Regulations Page 6. was .wondering if the Commission was going to develop a policy whereas if these docks did not meet the specifications, if there would be required .sp , i ica►tions, II = It would probably be on- a case-to-case basis, but until the state- 1-v ,% - �knaw .wh-at their final draft is going to be and -they acct on, it* we really cannot even begin to ak.er.-a, co me -t�-A . i DR*,= ALLEN.,, Point:oint: 1 aa. re 'e en in myself# bra ento have been building sin- a .,th.e" C eta Lon rules and the Commission were in effect so anything related to mgr, personal property is under an Order iditions that will b having a Certificate of Compliance so I guess 1 am speaking -for my friends and neighbors who have s-truc-tures: that anti-dated my process o ink�_ 1 have three suggest i ons I would like to leave..- with the Board, The first suggestion is that if expensive engineering is- goi.ng. to . e part of the plan is going to be required, consideration eight be given of package engineering where the engineers could do a whole area and the cost, .of that survey and engineering would be presumably less because the engineers would be there, they would be surveying the whole area and the cost could b e pro-rated among the occupants in the area. My second suggestion is if it is possible to have any form - of -grandfathering of - existing structures, perhaps that would be more palatable to the state if the term of the grandfather clause could .have-.a time duration to it, e'.-re used to thinking in terms of 9 year leases, Most of us, 1 think, if we had a structure that we - wanted to hang onto, might be willing to l e t it go 99 years from now, if it- had to- return to kvv,s original state. That time duration is probably inadequate as far as saving the environment is concerned, perhaps a lesser duration of time could be considered. Cine of the advantages of a term, grandfathering, it would give people opportunity o Mink about alternative compromises to save money for engineering, save money. for new structures or modifications, if they were required . My third comment is primarily to the Board. There are some issues which way or may not be within the province of your mandate. I ' not clear whether they are or not but.--these- issues may have as much priority or more priority than some of the things we' re con- sidering in Section H toni8ht and 1 think it would be good if this somehow could be mentioned in the course of our concerns about con- servation. on- servat on. 1 think particularly, I pick two issues at the moment, of the impact upon the polut-i-on of the salt water by some of the very high powered engines -that seem .to e-- acousulating in the Bays and Rivers and 1 think also of the destruction of the eel grass by prop- ellers, as 1 am sure vany of you are aware has a terrible impact upon the food chain. 1 thank you for hearing ups tonight. JOANNEFERRAGAMMO, River Road: 1 ,just have two questions in terms of procedure, if the State law is passed- and adopted you're saying around January of 1990, does that mean your draft will be revised according to those changes? You were talking about making it compatible. There would be another draft and another public meeting I assume, is that correct? (Right) . In teras of the draft and the changes, are these changes voted at Town Meeting as a bylaw change or gust voted here in your Commission. CHAIRMAN: After a public hear in , they are voted by the Commission.