Laserfiche WebLink
- 6 - <br /> Mr. Wolk stated they are not attempting to destroy anything <br /> there. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated this plan is better than the first one. <br /> He does not think the plan is the big issue, it is wildlife <br /> habitat. This is a murky area. 10. 55 and 10 .53 are <br /> antithetical to each other. He believes it would benefit <br /> wildlife habitat because they would mow one section lower. <br /> He felt the Commission would benefit from additional input. <br /> It might be possible to have the Manomet Bird Observatory <br /> come in and look at the proposed cutting to see what birds it <br /> will benefit. Since it is an ACEC, he thought it wise to get <br /> more specific information. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday stated it should address all habitat. <br /> Mrs. Wolk stated there is another problem brought up at the <br /> last hearing, fire, and they had a letter from the Fire Dept. <br /> that during July and August, it gets so dry it could catch <br /> fire and reach the houses. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday suggested the Fire Chief go to the Selectmen <br /> with the problem. <br /> Mrs. Wolk stated they have lived there for thirty years and <br /> when the bog is cut, the birds come in by the hundreds. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday stated that might be a disadvantage to some <br /> other species. <br /> Mr. Fitzsimmons stated he had been skeptical but was <br /> convinced by the agent this is a good idea. He was <br /> supporting the idea and is surprised that it has come forth <br /> additional information is needed. He is concerned that it is <br /> within the ACEC. Cutting should only be at the edge of the <br /> bog, not on the dike. <br /> Mr. Wolk stated they did not intend to do any other. <br /> Mr. Fitzsimmons wanted it made clear they would not be <br /> maintaining the path to the dike. The Agent stated that can <br /> be conditioned. <br /> The Chairman recognized Atty. Hill . A letter from him was <br /> distributed. He came here tonight expecting a report to <br /> support what they were putting forth. Comments have been <br /> made that are hearsay. He does not believe the commission <br /> should rule tonight. He suggested evidence submitted should <br /> not be used in the hearing. Photos of the area were shown. <br /> There are reasons set forth in his letter why the application <br /> should be denied. He came expecting a report, none was <br /> submitted. This is a delicate ecosystem. He would ask that <br /> the Notice of Intent be denied. The hearing was continued <br /> once for credible evidence, another should not be granted. <br /> DEP would uphold this, as well as the Court. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday stated the Commission does need more <br /> information and should have had a more comprehensive report <br /> from a consultant. <br />