Laserfiche WebLink
30 April 1398 <br /> 'age 7. <br /> have the Commission give their opinion to the Board of Appeals regarding <br /> wetland and wildlife values for these lots; she wanted to oppose that. She <br /> presented a letter to the Commission (copies distributed). Her opposition is <br /> based on what is going to be recommended to the Commission by Nor. <br /> Sherman that any structures and/or removal of vegetation within 50 feet of <br /> the ACEC line would have significant and adverse effects on midlife habitat, <br /> she/ sh, fisheries, and the prevention of storax damage. They believe that <br /> this proposed language is based on the conclusion the ACEC applies to these <br /> lots. That conclusion has not been made by the Board of Appeals. ; <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated if there is no ACEC there applying to it, then this <br /> would not natter. she concurred. He continued, Mr. Sherman is giving <br /> then an opinion that if the ACEC applies, then the Commission's concerns <br /> are valid. If the ACC does not apply, the concerns are not valid. <br /> Atty. tilde stated if that were all it was, they would not be here objecting <br /> and would agree that would be a prudent avenue to take, especially because <br /> it would conserve the resources and eh ate the constant continuance that <br /> her clients have been going through.. That is not all that is involved and <br /> because this matter has been continued specifically by the Commission <br /> regarding zoning questions, the app cants have not had the opportunity to <br /> address the scientific basis for the determination that these lands have <br /> significance for midlife habitat. <br /> Mr. Rosenberg stated that has to be brought before the Board of Appeals. <br /> Atty. edea stated the scientific dete ation that these lots have value for <br /> wildlife has been made by Mr. Sherman based on certain scientific <br /> information. Her clients have not had the opportunity to present their views <br /> about that issue to the Commission. 'here, the Commission would be acting <br /> without having given the applicant an opportunity to be heard and their <br /> position is that until the Board of Appeals acts and makes the initial <br /> deternnation on the zoning status of these lots, any conclusion with reset <br /> to wildlife or wetlands values is premature. They fxlly acknowledge and <br /> have all along stated their belief that they have to comply with the wetlands <br /> and Commission's regulations and are not opposed to doing that. However, <br /> s noted in her letter........Mr. Rosenberg interjected if Atty. Gildea wants <br /> the Commission to read the letter, if submitted at the hearing is not <br /> something that could be decided upon at the moment, <br /> Mr. She ma.n stated he is opposed to most of what has been said but in <br /> fairness to Atty. tilde , his recommendation to the Board of Appeals was not <br />