Laserfiche WebLink
6 May 1999 <br /> Page 19. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he would also say the whole area, coastal dune other <br /> than bird habitat, is a very rich area for other species. He will provide to the <br /> Commission and the applicant a copy of Diane r t s' report. she went out <br /> in December and looked at this when vire knew w the filing was coming in with <br /> the consent of the applicant and her report indicates it is Quito important <br /> from the wildlife habitat standpoint. For that reason, he would request that <br /> the Commission, at this point, vote to accept a recommendation that 316 <br /> CMR, 10.24 1 "If the issuing authority d. r in that a resource area is <br /> signlicant to an interest of M.G.L. c. 131, Section 40 for which n <br /> presumption is stated in the Preamble to the applicable section, the issuing <br /> authority shall impose such conditions as aro necessary to contribute to the <br /> protection of such interest". The performance standards for coastal dunes <br /> does mention bird habitat and there is lots of it, other than birds, so he asked <br /> for a motion to accept 19.24 1 for wildlife habitat significance. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he is saying the Commission is taping the interests of <br /> wildlife habitat, other than birds, and applying it as an interest to this <br /> project which need protection and will impose such conditions as necessary.to <br /> contribute to that protection which, in his opinion, would be a denial. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to invoke 319 CMR 19.24 1 for this <br /> project. Unanimous Vote. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he would also like to give to each member of the <br /> Commission and the applicant, Diane's letter and what he thinks are the <br /> relevant portions of Chapter 172. In terms of the 59 foot setback <br /> requirements and in terms of what it is based upon which is at the very end, <br /> in terms of all that is contained dere by reports of wetland buffers and the <br /> jurisdictional overview ofChapter 172 is Section 12 and Section 7, capsulized <br /> here. This boils down to if a person does not wish to ]peep the 6' separation <br /> from the resource area that we say has wildlife habitat value, they must <br /> either prove that the project is absolutely necessary and there is no other way <br /> to do it, or it has no wildlife habitat significance. The report from Diane <br /> eretos indicates that it has significant wildlife habitat significance and even <br /> the NT indicates this that was presented by the applicant. For all of those <br /> reasons, he would recommend, based upon this plan, that the Commission <br /> deny the project. <br /> Atty. Carter asked if Mr. Sh rman's previous recommendations for this <br /> project: Mr. Sherman asked if he meant the possibility of something? <br /> did. Mr. Sherman stated when he met earlier with the applicants, he <br /> indicated that it may be possible to accomplish something by going no further <br />