Laserfiche WebLink
15 July 1999 <br /> Page 7. <br /> supposed to get together. Board of Appeals was approved last night(four variances as requested were <br /> granted). I think that we can close pending a consultation with Mike rot ke on a compensatory <br /> vegetation plan. <br /> Public comment: none. <br /> VOTE: Motion made and seconded to close pending submission of a plan acceptable to the <br /> Agent and receipt offinal Board of Appeals decision. Unanimous Vote. <br /> CLOSED PENDING. <br /> 8:10 RICK E.BROOKS,95 Pickerel Cove Road, a continuance from July 1 , 1999. Arlene Wilson <br /> advised she and the Attorney for Mr.Brooks,Peter Sunderlin,met with the Agent and cane up with some <br /> agreement as to the notice issued. It is not a problem to this case. we also spoke about Chapter 91 issues. <br /> Bob came up with some language relative to going forward with the project and making sure that Chapter <br /> 1 issues are resolved. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated he reviewed the package and did meet with them. It was adequate. In terms of public <br /> access issues,we have concerns. I suggested that we add a condition protecting pubic access or that we <br /> tie our findings into Chapter 9 1. we have a responsibility for protecting recreational interests,but I don't <br /> think that supersedes existing law in terms of granting access for resource areas for which there is not <br /> access. <br /> letter was received from Klass Natural Heritage for anyone who is interested. They would like certain <br /> conditions imposed during construction such as examining the area for rare species. He asked if the <br /> applicant would have no objection to this? Ms.Wilson said no,no objection. They are also suggesting <br /> that a fence be built at the low water time of the year and provided we can get the letter of opinion from <br /> Chapter 91. <br /> PublicComment: Attorney Jeremy Carter representing Pickerel Cove Resident's Association. They are <br /> finely against having the fence run to the low water nark. The indication is that it will run 10 feet into the <br /> water. 'There is an eight foot easement granted through the Registry of Deeds to allow residents to walk <br /> down the beach and into the water. The residents have moorings out on lashpee/Wakeby. The case law <br /> which he had read talks about access between high and low water. Most of the uses deal with coastal <br /> situations,but I would suggest that under these circumstances there is a high and low water mark and the <br /> residents would have the right to egress between high and low water marks. There would be no benefit t <br /> having a fence run from the high to the low water mark. They would have no objection to the use of this <br /> fence as a border fence to the high water mark. However,to stretch it over a beach to the water ten feet is a <br /> big concern. if the fence is in the water,I don't know how you're going to address passage of animal <br /> issues. I don't see the need of crossing the high water mark in this case. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated we have the mission to allow public access,but whether that gives us the right to <br /> dictate issues of access in a resource beyond existing state law. I believe we should tie it into Chapter 91 <br /> vire will have fulfilled our obligation and avoided litigation. I would urge that we take that course. Our <br /> condition would say that you can't build that portion of the fence until you receive Chapter 91 permission <br /> (through the DEP). <br /> Vis Wilson stated under the wetlands Protection Act and town by-laws, the surface water body doesn't <br /> start until mean low water. Above mean low water it is a bank. If you think about this in relation to the <br /> defi <br />