6/19/2003 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

said 1 we require depths from the float to the channel, and we have enough information to ascertain that it's adequately deep, 2 we condition the construction methods, 3 re Greenseal Environmental iter, vm condition that also, anter quality certificate is the DEP's concern, and is a navigation issue which is covered by the Board of Appeals. Bob said none of these issues are relevant to this i Commission and we don't have to consider this letter at all. I Mr. Butler raised the issue of property line, and Bob replied that we have been told by Torn Counsel a number of times that this is not in our purview. Feats Boyd commented on the navigation issue, and was told that navigation is under the Harbormaster. Jack said we have already approved this application on the basis that it meets our performance standards, and Mr. Boyd should contact the Zoning Board. Keats Boyd NII requested a continuance so they can talc to the Harbormaster, Dave Sanicki said the questions raised are matters for the Board of Appeals. The Harbormaster, the Shellfish Officer, the Waterways Committee all answered to the Board of Appeals, and its the Board of Appeals' purview to answer these questions. He sees no need to continue v4th this Commission since It meets our performance standards, as It did vAth the previous-submissions, and they have made modifications to appease the neighbors. Perry Ellis and he met on site and agreed to this latest plan, which addresses mostly the visual aesthetics. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the plan. 7:20 p,m, Milton Glass, 30 Fells Pond Road (continued from 6/5/03). Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to .duly 24 a 7:00 p.m., at the request of the applicant. 7:25 p.m., save Popponesset Bay, Popponesset creek and Spit (continued from 6/5/03) Norman Hayes represented the applicant and commended ended Bob for his yeoman work, said they've been working YAth the State and the Town, and asked for one more continuance in order to get 's reply. Bob said Jim O'Connell and he care to the conclusion that the standards of the Wetlands Protection Act would have been compromised if the spit were too narrow and lower and thus reduce its potential for storm damage prevention. If we were to depend on the initial proposal to take the sand from the inside and dredge from the outside, it would not necessarily do it. But if we defined the profile which would provide the optimum amount of storm damage prevention and maintain that profile, then we have met the elements of the law. This was confirmed in discussions vAth DEP and Jim