Laserfiche WebLink
etc, .At that pomt, Mr. Kirrane didn't.really see much point.on carrying the conversation much ftwther. <br /> OrigirWly,the abutters concern was over drainage of water over propel and Mr. Kirrane believes that they <br /> addressed that in which it was demonstrated that the water flowed in a different direction. Mr. Kirrane <br /> believes that the removal of the wall really becomes the major contention because it could undenxiine the <br /> structure of the septic system. <br /> Fred Camerato, abutter, addressed.the Board,and stated that these issues had started about two and a half <br /> years ago and it has cost him a lot of money to just get something that is fairly right for both parties involved.. <br /> Mr. Camerato spoke to Mr. Welch when it all first started and he told Mr. welch that he would like to work <br /> together with hirn and that he would like to be a good neighbor so he mentioned his concerns and Mr. welch <br /> turned a deaf ear. Mr. Cameratp let it commence and he saw the plans and.noticed that it was not being built <br /> according to the plans. when lir. Camerato approached Mr. welch again, he didn't want to hear it. Mr. <br /> Carncr to stated that last year on September 10, 2008 there was an Enforcement Order from the Board that <br /> Mr. welch was supposed to do something about and Mr. welch never approached him to work something <br /> out, Mr. Camerato Mated that if there is no agreement.mach than he would lie a cel time period that this <br /> can be accomplished whether it's two weeks, a month, or whatever but after that,there should be a fine <br /> imposed. Mr. Camemto then questions the Board as to what authority they have because it has been more <br /> than a year and he would assume that once an enforcement order is issued,then they should comply and not <br /> be ignored. He is asking to just be fair and get this settled. <br /> Mr. Pinaud asked what the issue is with the stone'wall and if it meets performance standards, Mr. Carnerat <br /> states from the audience that-it is not tied into'the septic system at all'as he is a.licensed builder and is willing <br /> to inform everyone that removing the driveway and wall will not disturb the septic system. Agent McManus <br /> answers Mr. Pinaud's question and explains that in his opinion,the entire driveway and the whole length of <br /> the wall meets performance standards of land subject to coastal storm flow. what happened was that the <br /> Commission had voted to deny the Amended Order request,but his personal feeling was that the driveway <br /> sloes not violate the performance standards. No adverse effects to the salt mph either and the idea that <br /> runoff.from one single driveway was going to have deleterious effects on the salt marsh is absurd. However, <br /> the Commission voted the way it did,to deny it,-and the next recourse was to send out an Enforcement <br /> Order. The most important thing right now is to see if everyone can meet on site,himself and anyone else <br /> who feels that they should be brought into the situation and try to find another solution to be worked out. <br /> Otherwise, the Enforcement Order will go out and the Commission will need to determine a certain number <br /> of days when the work must corrnrnence to bring it hack the original approved plan of record and the <br /> applicant can take-matters into.his own hands in civil court to deckle what.happens after that. The <br /> Enforcement Order can not be appealed through DEP as this is the final say. Mr. Pinaud asks if the <br /> Commission has already denied a particular issue and an enforcement order was not sent out yet, can the <br /> applicant change the laps and.come before the Board again and Agent McManus states that they can not as <br /> the original Orders of Conditions have expired this past year so there is no choice that Conservation has t <br /> issue the Enforcement Order even if the neighbors try to work something out, it still must go back to the <br /> original plan. Agent McManus agrees that the only recourse Conservation can do is to.issue an Enforcement <br /> Order. Mr. Pinaud clarifies with Agent McManus that if the applicant wanted to submit changes it would be <br /> after the driveway is reduced to gravel and the wall removed and they can thea submit a new application. <br /> Agent McManus agreed and states that they can apply for an RDA after they comply witli the Enforcement <br /> Order. Mr. Cross is concerned about opening a new NOl and Agent McManus replies that it does not <br /> necessarily need to be an NOL It would depend on the supe of the work, <br /> Agent McManus states that because the Enforcement Order should have gone out months ago,the proper <br /> course of action should have already taken place. The Commission needs to decide how many clays once the <br /> Order is issued,the owner has to comply. Agent McManus explains that the Enforcement Order is the <br /> permit to allow the owner to return the drive ay to the original plans. vice Chairman Shaw asks for a <br /> 5 <br />