10/19/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

.19 October 2000 Page 6. 7:30 L. Clary Hill, 50 P pponesset Island Road, continued from 21 September 2000. Atty. Christopher Maffucci and Bob Hamilton were present to represent Mr. Hill. Atty. Maffucci asked if there were any objections to his taping the hearing? Mr. Hamilton will go over the permitting process and Atty. Maffucci stated he would address the legal questions that have co ne-up. Mr. Sherman advised this is a revetment repair project before us. Prior to this there was a house dem oil tion reconstruction project not yet closed out. There are details to be worked out on the vegetation. A meeting has been postponed because of differing concepts on.legalities about access. He will give a position statement to Mr. Hill's regal repres ntatiVe.concerning access revolving around the previous permit. There has not been an inspection of the interior of the house for the number of bedrooms. we, and � Town counsel, still think that is a valid requirement. Also, on the current application for the revetment there are caveats added to the traditional form for access limiting access, which he doubts sets a good precedent and creates a situation in which we cannot adequately inspect and thus protect the interests of the act and the wetland values of Chapter 172. Those details regarding legal access are probably best determined by a meeting between ourselves, Iver. Rosenberg who is an-attorney, and so forth. He did not feel tonight's forum is appropriate forgetting into that. Atty. Maffucci stated only to the extent that a decrial will be based on lack of access. Mr. Sherman stated that has not been said, it has been said it causes the Commission . potential problems. It has not been said it will be denied for that reason. Mr. Rosenberg asked if there has been a certificate of compliance on the previous filing? Mr. Sherman stated it has not been asked for. That is another reason why the two have to be drought together because they do get intertWined. Iver. Sherman gave the background. With the upcoming revetment repair which he agreed is necessary, it has problems. Revegetation will have to be done rafter the revetment repair-so it does not rake sense to go in at this point and do the revegetation so they are asking for an extension on the revegetation pursuant to the original house file. This is a legitimate request. However, there is still the problem with the access. He added, if it was possible to schedule, at their convenience, to examine the interior of the house for 10 or 1 minutes, that would solve a lot of problems. There is a legitimate reed to access the property for the original application for the house and, of course, while the. revetment i j being built and before it is stabilized, there is a'legitimate creed to inspect i . Limitations on access are an important consideration. He recommended listening to Mr. Hamilton's presentation on the revetment repair itself. Mr. Hamilton stated -after discussing the details of the proposed scope of work and construction methodology, he would like to pose the question as to ghat extent do they need to modify the existing landscaping plan and propose that is followed up with a meeting with Mr. Sherman and the landscape architect to try to agree what is the best approach before bringing it back before the Commission. They are also looking for an extension for putting the plantings in by October 3 1. Once the issues are resolved with the landscaping plan, they would like to schedule a meeting with the Commission on-site to show what it is they are proposing to do. Mr. Sherman stated he could not guarantee r to get everyone, or ever a quorum, to the site.