10/21/2010 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

Enforcement order that was issued in Jure. This Notice of Intent is for a wooden patio that was installed in the rear of,the residence. It is explained that the wooden patio is an informal structure that sort of looks like several pallets laying side-by-side on brick supports. The patio was placed where there was previously lawn and.can be lifted and moved. Mr. Vaccaro feels that the owner clearly should have come-in to seek permitting before installing the.structure and they are basically here in a defensive posture. Agent McManus agrees with Mr. Vaccaro's assessment that it did net create a great deal of disturbance and its current existing state is not causing any adverse impact to the resource.area. The real issue with this situation is permitting protocol and ignorance of the bylaws and regulations. The Agent states that the Enforcement Ord r was mailed to Mr. Fields and Ms. Casey shortly after May 10 which included both violations, the clearing of vegetation on the coastal bank and the existence of a deck that was un permitted. Prior to the issuance of the Enforcement order, he had received a call from a resident on Popponesset Island who alerted him that a deck was being built in the rear of the property at 12 Popponessett Island Fid, so he issued a ' Stop Work Order before the deck was finished. The-Agent had spoken to two laborers at that time who were building the decks to stop working on it which they did as he had checked the property again a couple of days later. In the meantime, Conservation had not heard from the owner/applicant after the Enforcement order was sent out and which was preceded with two violation notices, both of which also went unanswered. About 1-1 y2 weeks later, the Agent had i gore back to the site and the deck was completed. He explains that it is'non compliance with an Enforcement order, ignoring of a Stop Work order and non-response to two violation notices. He states that based on the Conservation fine schedule and under Chapter 172 bylaw (which he reads for the record), the applicant can-be fined daily and the decks is still there despite full knowledge that it should have been removed shortly after receiving all enforcement/violation orders' or at least have some kind of contact with the department to discuss events moving forward. The deck, in its * current location, is approximately within ' of the coastal bank. In addition to not filing, it would-be a necessary responsibility of the applicant to show compelling meed for the decks. If it were to accumulate a daily fine, according to the fine schedule under Chapter 1 2 bylaw of$300/day for every day that the deck still exists, the total would be approximately $36,000 but the penalty for non-criminal offenses is a maximum um of$25,000. The Agent states that it is up to the discretion of the Commission and that he would not have any issues with charging the maximum or they can look at a 1 /day fine which totals approximately$13,300. He would like to mention that it is very important for the Commission to keep in mind ghat the precedent is in a case like this and how everyone else has to go through permitting procedures which involves plan submittal, corning before the Commission, and abiding'by orders of Conditions which this-particular owner ignored. He sees no excuse for ignoring a stop Work order and that the owner also knows full well that most f his property is within conservation jurisdiction because he had previously gone through a septic upgrade and all the permitting that is involved with that. He states that clearly this situation is a violation of permitting protocols rather than environmental impact standpoint. Based on these points, the Agent feels that this issue deserves a daily penalty. Mr. Gurnee asks when the deck was completed which the Agent cannot specify the exact date but it was before the Enforcement Order which was May 10, 2010. The Chairman asks if the order was gent registered mail which Agent McManus confirms that it was. The Chairman asks for comments from Mr. Vaccaro. Mr. Vaccaro agrees that it is an offensive series of events but would like to ask the Commission to be merciful in the penalty. He does not want this offense to be held at the same standard as the clearing of the vegetation in which that fine was $300 and he understands that this situation is different but would argue that these circumstances are not as egregious as actual clearing of vegetation in a resource area. Agent McManus agrees that from an environmental standpoint he is right but from a filing/jurisdictional standpoint, this is much more egregious because he gave ample opportunity for Mr. Fields to come forth without starting a daily fine schedule. Mr. Allen suggests $100-$150/day so that will show some mercy but it will also show displeasure. Mr. Sweet suggests imposing the maximum $25,000 with the exception that if Mr. Fields was to come before the Commission then maybe he can negotiate to a lower fine. Mr. Allen would also like to recommend that the newspaper be alerted. IIIb. Vaccaro would like to suggest attaching a specific number tonight and ask for a continuance to November 4th so that Mr. Fields can come before the Commission n to arrive at a final figure. Agent McManus agrees with IIIb. sweet's.suggestion and it