Laserfiche WebLink
17 April 1997 <br /> Page 5. <br /> engineering study. This was done. He came back with the engineered study <br /> and then there were further issues raised by the abutters. He had a shelsh <br /> study done and found none in the area ofthe fixed pier. It was felt they <br /> should. get Conservation approval before wasting time with hoard of Appeals <br /> review. He distributed copies of a letter written in 1990 by his opponents. He <br /> stated this is aU a personal issue, not concerning the dock. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated the issue remaining for the Commission is whether or not <br /> they want another opinion or are satisfied with what they have. The size of <br /> boats and their location can be conditioned. The resume requested will be <br /> necessary. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated there was sufficient information for the benthic issue <br /> and had no concerns, however, a valid issue was raised with resect to the <br /> 'own Bylaw regulation. <br /> Mr. Desrosiers stated the Commission has voted a policy that they would hear <br /> hearings only if required filings had been Ornade to other boards. fir. Sherman <br /> agreed that is the stated position; the Commission cannot act upon this until <br /> they render their decision. Mr. I esrosiers further stated Rick York dial a <br /> survey in the area of the work helm done. The Commission has taken Mr. <br /> York's opinion in the past. He suggested closing pending Board of Appeals <br /> approval. Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed, as this has been dome in the past. <br /> Mr. Sherman felt it would be wase to continue until approved by the Board of <br /> Appeals. liar. Rosenberg agreed, as there is a serious question raised by other <br /> people. In most cases, the Commission sloes not have people appear in <br /> opposition and in those eases has closed subject to approval by other boards. <br /> There is serious controversy here and so the letter of the law must be obeyed. <br /> Atty. Gildea stated the Commission should take advantage of the opportum"ty <br /> the Division of Marine Fisheries Study would present as serious questions <br /> have been raised. She advised the survey her clients had done was a meted <br /> survey but has not been rebutted by the applicant. <br /> Mr. Desrosiers took issue and stated the Shellfish Warden dial a survey in the <br /> area impacted by the work being dome; their survey was in an area 5 feet off <br /> shore and along an adjacent dock. <br /> Mr. Sherman repeated, because of the exact mature of the wording of the <br /> regulation, it would be most appropriate to continue until. Board. of Appeals <br /> permit is received. <br />