6/15/1995 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

6/15/95 - - Mr. Sherman advised the deck is a lateral extension around the side of the house. There is no impact; it is 78 feet to the salt marsh. He recommended a negative determination. Public comments: none. NOTE: Motion made and seconded to find a negative determination. Unanimous Vote. NEGATIVE DETERMINATION. 7:25 ARTHUR os for a Determination of Applicability on proposed landscaping and installation of a split rail fence at Lot 1A Shore Drive. Dave cosalvi presenting. He advised he is not doing the fencing, only the planting. He will be taking shrubs from the front and putting them on the side; he will put new ones in the front and around the swale. Mr. Sherman. stated the lot was advertised incorrectly. Also, the outside shower would have to go through the Board of Health although not shown on this plan* To be readvertised for the meeting on July 13. 7:30 POPPONESSET BEACH ASSOCIATION, Pathway/drainage, continued from May 11, 1995. Michael Grotzke summarized the history of this filing. Ownership of the road was an issue as far as the category under which it was filed. He has discussed this with DEP and they agreed this could be filed under category 2K, other activities* There is an item that allows addressing drainage issues. The swales have been in place for many years. Mr, Sherman stated they could file under 2K but it is specifically for routine maintenance; he read from the Act. The Commission would need some corroboration that they existed in a better condition on that date. Mr. Grotzke agreed; this can be proved, Under lo. , the DPW regulation, under the state it should not be a problem because you can do up to 5000 s.f. with replication. He has discussed this with Lenore White who felt that since they would be revegetating at the same time with indigenous plants, that would bypass the need to have replication, or equal replication. There would be "no net gain and no net loss". The area within the wetland is 115 s.f. and would fall under the town limitation. . Sherman agreed with everything about the BVW and could consider additional vegetation if details are provided. The Commission would need specificity of what will be put in there and conceptually could agree that augmentation could equal compensation. In the spirit of 10 .55, that could be justified. He asked how the dune performance standards could be overcome. N . Grotzke stated he felt the commission was supportive of the activity but was looking for a way to do this under the regulations. They would have a total of 315 s.f, of dune or coastal barrier beach.