2/10/1994 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Commission Public Hearing - February -10, 1994 Page 59 '1r. Sherman stated. the Cape Cod. Cranberry Growers Assoc. gave the Commission a detailed 11- t of what they state are the legal issues which he will discuss wither counsel tomorrow. Mr. Desrosiers asked if Nor. Mirto would like to submit something in writing? He stated no, his laws are on the books already, in the General Law; there is nothing he has to submit. Mr. Desrosiers stated any proposals put forth will be reviewed to be sure that they comply with general law. There are legal aspects that will not be decided tonight. Peggy Fantozzi of R. H. Cole Assoc. distributed comments based on the perspective , of her clients re cranberry bogs consistent with water management issues. She pointed out that tail water recovery ponds are left out. She feels it is import- pot that they be included every time water management functions are addressed because from the point of the Cormussion, they are the right thing to do. Mr. Sherman stated he purposely did not include tail water recovery- ponds even though he concurs that they are generally desireable because it isn't in the state res. He did not Mink it would be legally proper to put it into the 'down Begs since under Home Rule Amendment, the Commission can be stricter than the state but not less strict. Ms. Fantozzi stated there is nothing less strict about a tail water recovery system. Mr. Sherman stated he will have to discuss this with Toim Counsel.. Ms Fantozzi stated it -adds clarity to the regulation and therefore would be allowed. Her second point gelates to the Burden of Proof, she did not disagree with that, It is onerous of the o scion to require fire years of federal and state tax returns; it should stop with the Comission can require information. The Cranberry growers would have a bill of lading from ocean Spray to show they are doing it. 1 'dere was a general consensus on ,that. 4 '4 + Under normal improvement of the land in agriculture, it needs to be worded so that it does not include actively farmed. @lands. , + r ,r She asked, under D4, was Mr. Sherman talking about the land that is altered is the existing freshwater +wetland. that falls within the bounds of the cranberry bog'? The cranberry bog"itself i-S excliidd as land in agriculture. Under the state regulation, the intent of having a conservation plan that went through the review of the Con. nission is to then allow the alteration of "natural wet- lands" up to a certain threshold. Under the Conservation flan, that does not refer to the bog surface itself, it refers to the vegetated eetland within the lits of the bog. 'fir. Sherman stated that was not his understanding. MS Fantozzi continued, in the first section where you have land in agricultural use, it specifically excludes cranberry bogs. You can do normal maintenance activities on the hogs, as long as it is land in agriculture. The case in point, if she wanted to alter 11,000 s,f. of the cranberry bog surface for