Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Sanicki identified the ACEC line, noting the state does <br /> not permit dock facilities in said area. The proposal is for a <br /> bottom anchored permit for a 10 x 10 float from the Harbor <br /> Master, a ramp to a landing, and a staircase along the coastal <br /> bank. Said landing to be approximately twelve ft. square <br /> with a seating beach on one side. <br /> 1r. Sherman inquired as to whether or not Fells Pond falls <br /> under the jurisdiction of chapter 91. . Mr. sanicl i responded that <br /> t is "a great pond" . A great pond being determined to be over <br /> ten 10acres. <br /> The Chairman stated he is under~ the impression from the DEP <br /> that it is not a great pond as it is less than ten 1 acres. <br /> Mr. Sherman suggested the Conservation Commission seek <br /> clarification of this matter {Chapter~ 91) . <br /> Mr. Sherman further suggested the Hearing be continued <br /> in order for a determination to be nide as to whether or not this <br /> is a Chapter 91 jurisdiction as it relates to vertical pilings <br /> located in the water. He also questioned whether or not this <br /> matter, regardless of its size, is subject to a Board of Appeals <br /> decision as well . <br /> (There was brief discussion as to whether or not this matter <br /> is to be considered an ACEC arca/Chapter 91 pond. ) <br /> Mr. sanicki reported that the Harbor master has indicated <br /> that a bottom anchored float, with this approach for access to, <br /> does not warrant Chapter 91 requirements; to which Mr. Sherman <br /> disagreed. <br /> Mr. Sherman informed the Commission that upon inspection of <br /> the property he noticed a thin fringe of BVW, which has not been <br /> identified; fetta bush; maple; and swamp azalea. He reiterated <br /> that for a number of reasons, this matter should be continued. <br /> It was agreed that if the Chairman could present a copy of <br /> the letter he received from DEP stating Fells Pond is not <br /> considered to be a great pond, that particular question would be <br /> satisfied. However, the matter of BVW protection needs to be <br /> addressed. There is also the matter of a possible Board of <br /> Appeals decision regarding the walkway. <br /> There was also some discussion regarding the approval of <br /> landings within fifty ft. ) feet of the resource area in the <br /> naturally vegetated buffer strip, and the allowance of four <br /> ft. ) foot walkways. <br /> . <br /> At this point M . Sanici requested a continuance of the <br /> utter to allow ,for further discussion with the conservation <br /> Agent. <br /> -9- <br />