10/05/1989 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission October 5,, 1989 Page 2. FIs Behrman stated the Commission has been asked to make a determination of applicability and held the hearing open at the urging of the applicant for this last input. The Commission has the presentation, input from various interested and consulted parties, the input of the Commission' s consultant, why should this be continued any further. She asked if they were going to change the application? Nor. Humphries stated their interpretation of the letter was, if the Commission n did not agree with the applicant' s position on the coastal bank, two things could be done, a qualified geologist could define where the correct location of the bank was, dim O'Connell fits that Classification or that Jim o'Connoll could be asked to the site to define where the bank is. Unless the bank has been determined by someone with the credentials of someone, as Jeff Benoit suggested they use, then what they are faced with right now is the Commission's non-acceptance of the applicant's position, but no real definitive definition of the coastal bank. . Gray stated he found it amusing and troubling to hear it said that they reed more time to allow the Commission am CZ i to do what they (IEP) were hired t do, set the boundaries. It is not the. ,fob, of this Commission, nor CZ i, to present the plan showing boundaries. It is his understanding it is the job of the Commission to review a boundary delineation and to ascertain to the best of their ability whether that has been done correctly or not. This letter is dated the 5th of October, Benoit's letter is dated 19 September. He stated he could not imagine the time period could elapse and they not core up with a new set of plans to present to the Commission tonight. He stated he also found it strange in the proceedings that there was a gap in the input in that there has never been any input from ATEC Corp. , who is an integral partner in the team that evaluated that site. He had anticipated sitting down in the hearing process to question experts from ATEC that wrote a very valid section of their report; at no time were those persons present. The hearing was continued, at their request, to the 5th of October and now more time is being asked for this 'plan to be further; delineated. He stated he d i d not know what the game is. It seers if the Commission feels they have adequate information, they should make a decision tonight, the applicant should take a look at that decision and decide how to best core up with boundaries which they will have to do when the Notice of Intent is prepared. If there is a discrepancy, all the Commission has evaluated or is going to evaluate is what has been put forward* According to Jeff Benoit's letter, that information, as of right now, docs not appear to be in sync with- their understanding and h i s understanding of the top of the coastal bank. If that is in fact the case, they could take the decision of Commission and adequately prepare a plan showing boundary delineation and come forward with a Notice of Intent or appeal any decision they make and let the Department of Environmental Protection get involved. He did not think it appropriate. to think that CZM is going to set the top of the banks, CZ 's involvement would be as a consultant to this Commission to help thea evaluate information generated. Mr. Gray continued, after the receipt of Jeff Keno i t' s letter, why did- they not ask the Commission at some point, by letter, that as new information had cone to light more time was being requested to refine the plan. Michael Croet ke stated he had reviewed the letter and there is a lot of confusion still as to whore the state feels the coastal bank is and there are a lot questions asked in that letter, many of which all of them here were surprised by and are contrary to previous opinions and determinations.