6/27/1996 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

CONSERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 27v 1996 PAGE The benefit would be less run-off into the wetland area; greater natural vege- tation and the elimination of lawn, which would have a significant impact on the amount of herbicides and pesticides utilized to maintain the lawn. George Green, Jr. : Basically, what you are offering is a trade-off; offering us the lawn f or the deck, BaVid Sharpe: 1 have known that property and that hous-e since the day it was built. There never has been a lawn there to mow; there hasn't been a lawn there in the past f ive years. Mr. Lelito: Some of it was destroyed three yews ago, DavidharP : I don't think you have given us a damn thing in exchange for that deck. Bob Sherman: First of all, I am pleased that you have- informed us of another element of the violation. 1 wasn't aware of the excess soil that had been put there. 1 was only aware of the incursion of the 50 foot zone that- shouldn't have happened, and was previously denied. My belief is also in the previous permit and the lengthy discussions that we had on those. we also discussed the reegeta- tion of that area. So, I don't think this neve etation offer is anything new. Thirdly, 1 would like to put into the record once again, and I'll provide a copy to Mr. Lelito� the standard we go by, which is derived from two studies, review of naturally vegetated buffer strips from Univerity of Rhode Island by Desbonnet et al and the University of Washington_by Castelle et al. I will provide you with those references. In them, we have I won't boither- to read the whole thing. I'm inserting thea into the record, There are very IMP Ires ive state- ments which hold through in all of these studies. I will give you a couple of examples: *Buffers of less than 50 width are general- ly ineffective in protecting wetlands." "Buffers effectiveness increases with buffer width." "With regard to values of vegetative buffers to wildlife,- bigger is better, and some is better than none at all." , ; "Further noise disturbance from developing areas effects habitat quality and use." These are all issues we visited the first time around when we first gent through this. 1 don't hear to my satisfaction any change that justifies us changing our minds. As Chuck said, the lawn for deck trade, we went through that before too. The burden of proof under our by-law is stated apl.icitly and this is now specifically enshrined in the by-law, not just a regulation approved by the Attorney General: "Said NVBS should be aminimum of 50 feet- in width unless the applicant convinces the commission there is further provisions of Section 12 of this chapter that: A. The naturally vegetated buffer strip or part of it may be disturbed or diminished without harm to the values protected by this chapter. B. Reducing the scope of work alteration is not possible.