01/25/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

25 January 1996 Page 3. have been pennits issued with the work not always done in accordance Licensing with the town fell through the cracks. At the southerly end ofthe dockage, thm are some pieces of concrete that have ended up in the salt marsh. They would like to remove these and plug the spaces by hand. There are also some voids developing on the landward side. They would propose to instal filter fabric. In any vegetated areas. they would he planted with grasses. fir. Rosenberg stated either on#his lot, or adjacent, there is a crane and bucket operating. David Leverly, an abutter, advised the crane belonged to a friend who was ling the floating docks out of the water and setting them on the shore. fir. Shermm thought the repairs and remediation should be done and the methodology is okay but should be fine-tuned with conditions. He has a problem with the walls, if applying undcr limited project stags (headwalls). In his opMon, and Jim Mahala felt, it does not fit the limited project category. Also here is a difference in fees calculated. As Wilson stated there is confusion in the regs and perhaps in the submission. The section is 10.24 (7) (c) (2), nintmance, repair and improvement. The wls were there in 1987 and-clearly they were existing. The Commission could have some discretion by finding this is predominantly to berth.boats. There is a finmcial hardship here; l\r. Homeyer is autistic and mentally impaired. They are trying to insure hien an income. She advised she has checks available to cover the cost of the Agent's interpretation of the fee schedule. A& Sherman stated he is afraid of sem- -precedent . The Chainnan asked what is being discussed in tri s of money? Ms Wilson sued under 1.31. 0, $250. with $137.50 to the Comnussion; looking at linear feet, 240 feet or $480, $252.50 to the Commission. Local fee is $70 and $360 difference. A& Johansen stated it is the furst time-he had seen it done in this category. Filson stated is very uncon nton for someone to try to invoke a limited project. They are cWming it to be a coastal structure. There was further discussion of the fees. The Chairnian stated the number one question is whether the Comnussion wants to step away frorr in this case, the criteria for fee structure, as de ed by the agent? This is about the applicafion fees, not what the action should be. The Agent has determined a set of fees, as he sees it, under the act. 3e asked if any member wished to make a motion to vary those fees? Hearing none, he assumed the Comnussion would have to collect full fees. Any ftulher statements should be to the project itself.