8/12/1999 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

12 August 1999 Page 6. Return to New Business: Sign for Bi kerstaffe property: Mr. Sherman noted that the Conunission has received land,titled the Bickerstaffe property,with an agreement with the Orenda wildlife Trust splitting up the land. They are asking for$400; 0 for a sign. Mr. Sherman would like authorization to spend the funds on a sign for the new land. VO'C'E: Motion made and seconded to approve the expenditure of funds in accordance with Mr. Shermn's request. Mr. Sherman noted that the Commission is being given the opportunity to purchase a two acre parcel of lard off Meetinghouse Road. This will be reviewed by the Open Space Committee with no action by the Commission at this time. 5:05 NEW SEABURY PROPERTIES,LLC for reconstruction of an existing single family house with septic system at 3 Ocean Bluff Drive(Shore Drive),Assessors Map 123,Block 194. Mr. Gr t ke was present to represent New Seabury Properties, LLC. The project had been previously reviewed by the Conservation Commission in 1991. The existing cottage was built in 1940,with another structure on an adj a nt lot. New Seabury agreed, in 1991,to combine the two lots into one and construct a four bedroom cottage. The Order of Conditions for that has lapsed. New plazas highlight resource areas and the 100 year flood plain with elevation 12. Mr. Gr t ke does not expect the onurzission to make a determination at this time. Mr. Sherman stated the original filing has expired and the delineation protocol has changed somewhat in recent months for separating dunes from bans.He asked if Mr. Gr t ke has contracted with ENSR to d some work on this. A revised dune-lank interface line will need to be shown according to new standards, with staking, etc. There may also be an issue with Chapter 172 for an area with significant wildlife habitat. Diane Boretos will check the property in more depth. Public comment: A.property owner objected to not having enough time to review the proposals before the hearing. Mr.Rosenberg stated that the appropriate time to discuss this issue was at the continued hearing on 9 September. (Question from a woman in the audience who wanted to know if the owners can get representation that can converse with New Seabury and the Commission on this issue.) Mr. Sherman responded that if New Seabury wants to cooperate in this way,he has no objection to the property owners being represented at joint meetings. Question was raised by a woman regarding a letter from a Mr.Foley? Mr. Sherman responded that applicants need to have due process in filing their petitions, so if something is lacking in their filing,they need to have time to obtain the necessary information. This requires a continuance. If there is a defect in the application at the 9 September hearing,the Conunission will discuss whether the applicant will receive additional time to gather the required information, or whether the application will be denied. The Agent said he would be willing to meet with any of the concerned parties to discuss the application during the five days prior to the bearing when all the relevant materials must be delivered to the Commission. Amy Ball,representing the Poppone set Beach Association, stated that she has been contracted to oversee the project for their concerns and interests. She will withhold comment until the five day period before the next hearing. Mr. Sherman asked that Amy and perhaps one other person meet with him,as opposed to getting calls from other property owners seeking the same information. VOTE: Motion made and seconded to continue, at the request of the applicant,to 7:35 p.m. on September 1999. Unanimous vote. HEARING CONTINUED.