|
i
<br /> Conservation Commission
<br /> December; 14, 1989
<br /> Page 6.
<br /> SIMMONS: It depends on where it is.
<br /> PARLSKI : In front of my house, within 100 feet of the buffer zone, so I can get '
<br /> whacked with a. . . SI ON : Not if you've been doing it That' s not in here, see,
<br /> that' s the problem, it's not in here, this is a sweeping broad generalization.
<br /> Unattached structures include docks, does it not?
<br /> SIMMONS.: 4 e rade a comment at our last meeting, that we have not finalized these
<br /> regulations and we're going to make it very specific that docks are not included.
<br /> P ROLSK I : That's fine, what about mowing; what about the quality of life? I
<br /> would venture to say that those of us that have lived here for many, many years
<br /> know perhaps more about what is right or wrong around the water than a let of
<br /> other people.
<br /> SIMMONS: There are many things we are discovering about things around the water
<br /> that we never knew though, sir, as ,you are well aware.
<br /> PLKI : I appreciate that but also, I can remember times when people gust
<br /> legislated themselves, they policed themselves and knew what they were doing.
<br /> The other thing is, what applies to a marina, a 1500 ft. marina or a big condo
<br /> project, is It really applied to the homeowner?
<br /> SIMMONS: - e deal with each situation as ars individual situation.
<br /> PAROLSK I : But the routine or filing fee, it's all the same.
<br /> SIMMONS: That's regulated by the state, that's not regulated by us.
<br /> PAROLSKI : I really think there is this curtain of regulations coming down which
<br /> is beginning to impact people' s way of life and think you should be rade aware of
<br /> it.
<br /> . SIMMONS: Thank ,you for your comments.
<br /> ROTKE: The problem I have with this is, getting back into the basics of the
<br /> ASE , the ACEC was defined at the state level to clue the individuals reviewing
<br /> the project that it reeds to have extra attention to rake sure that an area like
<br /> Waquoit Bay which is very sensitive, we all agree to that,, isn't affected. To
<br /> just broadly say that these specific items here have a significant major impact
<br /> without assessing it is not fair. It should be the burden and that was what the
<br /> original intent was of defining the ACEC, of each individhal person who owns land
<br /> and wants to build something like a swimming pool to show without question that
<br /> this has no detrimental impact on our resource area. I think that's the way it
<br /> should remain. If someone wants to build a swimming pool , it can be shown, if
<br /> it's built properly with consideration to the environmental area, that ,you can
<br /> build a swimming pool and It has no impact on the ACEC. If you build a dock,
<br /> even though it doesn't apply, if ,your build it. improperly it will have a more
<br /> adverse effect on the Waq uo i t Bay area than if you build it properly. Again,
<br /> I think that the law should be modified or left as it is now. If your vent to
<br /> build a swimming pool it goes through the stringent scientific study to show
<br /> the pool does or doesn 't have impact. If it has a serious impact, ,your can set
<br /> the level of performance,, or whatever, then ,you can rake a decision, ,yes or no,
<br /> on that basis. I 'm Just guess i rig, maybe ,your can tell me that I 'm wrong, but
<br /> that ,you ' re trying to save time in having to review all the submittals and
<br /> applications that people will have to go through and expend monies to review
<br />
|