Laserfiche WebLink
request, Mr. Sanicki wrote on the plan that no new lawn is permitted. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the plan <br /> 7:30 p.m., Mike Nadzeika, 12 Gia Lane continued from 9/4/03 . Bob s6d s . they have asked for <br /> another continuance because once again it has not been staked. This Will be the third continuance, <br /> and a fee will be levied. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to October Td at 7:20 <br /> p.m. at the request of the applicant. The standard fee will be levied. <br /> 7:35 p.m.,Malcolm Portnoy, 65 Sunset Circle(continued from 9/4/03). . e Sanicl <br /> represented the applicant and requested another continuance in order to assess vegetation growth <br /> in a certain area. <br /> Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to October 2nd at 7:35 <br /> p.m. at the request of the applicant. <br /> 7:40-p.m., Save Popponesset Bay,Popponesset Creek and Spit (continued from 9/4/03). <br /> Norman Mayes represented the applicant and gave an overview-of the issues. They want to try to <br /> continue the nourishment program and the dredging program, and at the same time meet the <br /> performance standards to the highest degree possible as explained in the Act, and he explained <br /> how they plan to do so. Bob said there were discussions nth the DEP, Jin O'Connell, coastal <br /> geologist with the Sea Grant Program, dim Hanks, Conurfissioner of waterways, and the Army <br /> x <br /> Corps of Engineers, on the rare species issue, and they've come to a consensus that this plan is <br /> accomplishing stonn damage prevention, even though in a very formal sense it may not meet the <br /> exact standards of the wetlands Protection Act. Bob said he is confident that all the above <br /> participants thinly that this is a very reasonable compromise. He said we have not received a <br /> formal approval from Natural Heritage, but he recommended that we close and issue pending <br /> hearing from Natural Heritage, with the understanding that if Natural Heritage has a problem with <br /> the 9 or 10 ft. options, it 'is possible that we would have to reopen. <br /> Michael asked for clarification of the following: <br /> 1 In those years where there may be multiple storms and several overwashes, win the spit be <br /> reconstructed after each storm? Bob said it would be, and the condition wil be added that if they <br /> do not maintain this prole based upon the annual survey, they will not be allowed to dredge. In <br /> the initial proposal, we were hoping the spit would maintain the profile based upon the dredging. <br /> Now we are mandating that the spit maintain an optimum profile. <br /> 2 Will the source of the sediment used to reconstruct and maintain this profile be strictly from the <br /> dredging of the channel on both sides (both Nantucket Sound and Pppneset Creel or will it be <br /> brought in from ogler sources as necessary's Bob said there Will be dredging on the inside, plus in <br />