10/19/2000 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

19 October 2000 Page 8. Mr. Sherman suggested that we offer an eight ,months extension, which could be extended again, if need be, on the planting plan occasioned by the previous application on the clack, the resolution of the-court action. The Chair asked if that would enable therm to build the revetment. Mr. Sherman stated no, there is no sense in telling them to do the planting. We originally had.an agreement of October 31 It, in compensation for the deck, but it doesn't make sense to do that if we have a revetment repair on the horizon. Temporarily, vire are asking for an extension on the requirement for the planting under the previous permit. Mr. Sherman stated the Commission should vote on that. The Chair asked what are they looking for tonight on the revetment? Mr. Sherman there will have to be much ,more-detail between ,meetings. The revetment design looks fire. There will have to be a ,meeting to talk about reveetation . Mr. Hamilton stated what he specifically is asking tonight, he thought it still would be fruitful to ,meet with the Commission to recognize the project and get an extension to the October 31 st deadline, gain support for tallying about it off-line, schedule a time to ,meet, if the Commission is interested and then come back. The chair called-for public comment; there was none. M . Rosenberg was concerned about modifying the previous agreement. Mr. Sherman advised the ,modification would be more planting, not less. They have to repair the wort where the equipment comes in and vire would want some compensatory plantings. Mr. Rosenberg stated since they are going to have to come up with a planting schedule which is new and more extensive than already permitted, why not let that October 3151 expire. Mr. Sherman felt the Commission should vote to extend it for eight months and then withdraw it if necessary. He asked Atty. Joyce if that was correct, as part of the court agreement? Atty. Joyce agreed that Mr. Sherman was correct, all they are asking is an extension. By extending the October 31st deadline, it does not mean that this revetment project is going to be approved. Mr. Sherman added, the planting plan may become moot. Atty. Joyce stated it may be changed. VOTE: lotion made and seconded to accept the eight ,month extension from November 1 st for the plantings. unanimous Vote. The chair asked the applicant's representatives hover long they wished to'continue. They thought two gee' s would be sufficient. Atty. Maffucci stated there are two access issues, one that is access to the actual property for purposes of looking at the revetment and plantings. His client's position is the some as when Alec Joyce informed the Commission that as long as there were reasonable accommodations made to the Hills being there, ,Waking an appointment to come out and loaf, there is no problem with that. However, there will be no interior inspections. He stated he did not want to debate that right noir. The chair stated it had been agreed to not go into that tonight.