7/29/2004 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

drawing to provide more detail, 3 we should have the new plan as an overlay to show the changes from the original plan, and the project, including storm-water analysis, is sufficiently complex for the Commission to need an independent analysis pursuant to MGL -^ 3G. Michael said we generally don't permit an encroachment of the 50 ft. buffer, and we would consider storm grater management something that needs to be within the work limit. We would -need some justification why it is necessary to encroach on the buffer zone. Meson made, seconded and unanimously cared to grant a continuance to August 1 e at 8:05 p.m., at the request of the applicant. 7:20 p.m., Wili wbend Development Corp., LLC, 37 Shoestring Bay Road (continued from 7/22/04). Michael gave Bob's comment that vire are Mill awaiting a revegetation plan and there is also the issue of reconciling comments of the Division of Marine Fisheries and our Shellfish Marden. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to grant a continuance to August 191,at 7:50 p.m at the request of the applicant. 7.25 p.m., Charles Viglas, 10 Spoondrift Circle (continued from 7/22/04). Dave Sanicki represented the applicant and presented the project. All the requirements have been met. Motion made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the plan. } 7:30 p.m.,William Levine, 37 Fiddler Crab Lane (continued from 7/22/04). Dare Sanicki represented the applicant and presented the project. Motion made, seconded and unanimously cawed to approve the plan. 7:35 p.m., Fred Blythe, 228 Wading Place Road (continued from 7/22/04). Mr. Blythe said he would like to erect a 5 ft. high gate. Michael Talbot reclused himself from this hearing because he has too many friends in this community. ,jack said a number of the Commissioners have expressed their personal feelings about blocking this access to the beach, but we attempt to follow the Wetlands Protection Act. We requested a written judgment from Town Counsel, who responded as follows: "in ray opinion, the Conservation Commission would not have jurisdiction or authority to render any kind of determination on public access rights and other issues relevant to the nature of proprietary interests on the subject filed. So long as the Conservation Commission is satisfied that the information provided in the request in determination of applicability found relative to the owner of the properties is true and accurate, the scope of the hearing and the evidence introduced at the hearing should be limited to determination as to the applicability of G.L. c. 131, §40 and the l lashpee wetlands Protection Bylaw to the specific area and/or work described in the Request for I' eterminaon of Applicability. Upon rendering either a positive or negative determination in the manner prescribed on the Department of environmental Protection approves! WPA Fora 2, the Conservation Commission will have fulfilled its statutory duty in this regard.".lack said we gave a copy of this letter to the Cape Cod Times at the last meeting. He requested comments from the audience. Paul Revere, attorney representing Nancy Gaffyn, said he had a discussion with Patrick Costello this afternoon. At about 4:45 p.m., Mr. Costello called Bob Sherman and left a message in his voicemail. He requested that someone from the Commission go into Bob's 2