Laserfiche WebLink
Conservation Commission <br /> October 5, 1989 <br /> Pace 3. <br /> 1r, Groetzke stated the definition for coastal bank is still being developed <br /> and evolved. The bottom line to Mr, Benoit's letter is that further questions <br /> should be directed to dire O'Connell , who now is the qualified state geologist <br /> for CZM, He has asked their consultants to look towards CZM for guidance to <br /> determine exactly where the state will take a position on coastal bank definition; <br /> this should be carried through a--d abide and agree by professional ' s d finitioh <br /> of where the coastal bank is. <br /> Mr. Gray asked if that would include people from ATEC? <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated yes, they will take into account all valid input. <br /> 1r.. Burns asked when he received a copy of the letter? <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated he received it about last week and they have been making <br /> attempts to contact Mr. Benoit; he' s very difficult to reach. They have tried <br /> to contact him and have missed h i s return calls. <br /> Mrs. Simmons asked if it would have been appropriate, when they got the letter <br /> and wanted a continuation, to notify the commission immediately? She wasn't <br /> called until Tuesday morning and asked to have a meeting with the Commission <br /> and their people; that, in itself, is a violation of public information --Meetings. <br /> The Commission is in public time frame with their meetings. fir. Zeppenfeld was <br /> told there was no way possible, at that late date. Mr. Grotzke stated they had <br /> hoped to have input from Mr, O'Connell at that time. firs. Simmons stated the <br /> Commission could have been notified the day after they got this letter. <br /> Ms Behrman stated the commission has a Request for Determination of Applicabilty <br /> in front of thea, the subject matter is whether or not the Board agrees with <br /> their definition of a resource area. With that specific request, there has <br /> been a lot of input and s-he feels there has been enough input to make a decision, <br /> ,yes or no, whether the Commission feels the Wetland Protection Act is applicable <br /> in far more areas than they have delineated or not. If it is a matter of re- <br /> delineating resource areas, that is a subject for a further Request for Deter- <br /> mination <br /> of Applicability or a Notice of Intent. They seem to be saying they <br /> would like to modify what is in front of the Commission, She feels this should <br /> be out short as the more things are continued, the more confusing it gets. <br /> Mr. Grotzke stated they do not intend to have an indefinite continuation,, but <br /> as more e things come to light, if they are successful in contacting Mr. O'Connell <br /> and having a discussion with him, they should be able to clarify their under- <br /> standing. <br /> nder- <br /> standin . <br /> Ms Behrman stated what h e is saying is that they may or may not be changing the <br /> definition of where the resource area i s. Mr, Grotzke agreed. She stated they <br /> might potentially change all of the documents presented to the Commission. <br /> Mr, Grotzke stated the -reason they are considering this is because of the broad <br /> degree in difference between the definition of the coastal bank by the consult- <br /> ant of the Commission and their definition of the coastal bank, they understand <br /> there needs to be a refinement. <br /> Mrs. Simmons asked if they would like to withdraw the Request for Determination <br /> of Applicability and submit a new one. <br /> Ms Behrman asked if they were going to change the RDA that was in front of the <br /> Commission and stated she felt that was a_ new application, <br />