8/3/2006 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

value, which is the removal of turf and the revegetation in the understory, which for the past ten years has been mulch. Len said this being an RDA, what is our area of jurisdiction` Mr. Talbot pointed out where the 100 f . line is and the areas that are ur'sdictionai. Len: "Why this isn't a Notice ofIntent?" �. Talbot: "Because a request for determination of applicability is a question to the Conservation Commission—i.e.� is there any potential adverse impact that would require the filing .notice of Intent. Our stipulation, if you read the narrative part, is very clear that,there is no impact. In fact everything is positive. All the principle work being clone here is minor activity, mostly beneficial, and the deck itself has no impact. The idea of a Notice of Intent is to give you control -over whatever is being done which can potentially do some harm, but here there's no harm that can be done that hasn't already been done to the site. Len: "Almost all the work you'll be doing is in the resource a." Mr. Talbot: `No, it's within the buffer zone. The only resource areas here are edge of water and a tiny bit of BVW with few red maples. There's no inland bank-here. It's just buffer one." Len: "I don't have a problem with what you're doing here. I just want to make sure that the fifing 'is correct." fir. Talbot: "Marty brought Steve and Drew out to the site and they all agreed that it was an RDA because no resource area would be negatively impacted and all the significant impacts are positive for the resource areas and the buffer one." Len: "So if we vote for a negative, that means it's not applicable. It's counterintuitive to me to have to say that, because it's within 50 fl. of the pond." Mr. Talbot: "But the house is 35 ff. from the pond. Cass: "So that means the Concession never has to hear anything within the 100 ff." Drew: "It"s a precedent issue." Mr. Talbot: "I don't see how it's a precedent. RDA's are issued all the time on issues that have n impact. we've allowed sheds, decks, all kinds of things have been ahowed in these areas when there's no impact." Cass: "I don't think the issue is impact, I think the issue is Jurisdiction." fir. Talbot: " f course it's Jun"sdiction, but there's no impact. That's what determines whether or not a Notice of Intent is necessary, i.e., is there some reason that the Commission has to be sure that whatever is done isn't going to have an impact, like a foundation. The extent of the construction is putting in six little sono tubes. There's no dredging, filling, or destruction o vegetation. It's a ground level deck su' pport d by sono tubes in order to protect tree roots that are underneath. Ralph said he has trouble with the compelling reason to violate the buffer zone. Mr. Talbot: The rMtigation regulation was set up sp cificahy in circumstances like this to allow the Commission to get something of much greater value for much lesser value given up. we've,allowed additions', foundations and decks." "Ralph: Not incursions." Mr. Talbot: "Absolutely, all these have been incursions. one was within 10 ff. of the buffer. That's what the ntigation guide i set up for. The closer you go, the more you have to give back.'" Len: `But i think the question is whether it should'be a Notice of Intent or an RDA." Mr. Talbot: "'what is a Notice of Intent going to protect` There's no perf ffrmce standard that this couldn't possibly meet because right now it's in a buffer zone that consists of mud and mulch. If you go to the site you'll see the erosion. Evening that's being done is to protect the buffer zone. Even the deck protects the gree roots. The whole point of ars RDA is.for a situation where there's nothing that could potentiay hurt the'resource area. we don't even need silt fencing.