Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> Motion: IIIb. Sharer moved to approve the Administrative Request,uest, seconded by Mr..Sweet. <br /> Vote unanimous. 6-0. <br /> HEARINGS: <br /> 6:00 Gooseberry Island Trust and SN Trust, 0 Gooseberry Island Point Road: <br /> Proposed construction of a bridge and driveway to provide vehicle access to Gooseberry <br /> Island from property located at end of Punkhorn Point Road. Continued from.8/2812014 <br /> to allbw time for soil boring and structural analysis of proposed bridge. Nl <br /> Resource Area: Land subject to Coastal storm Flow(Velocity and A-Zones), Land <br /> Under ocean, Salt Marsh, Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, Coastal Bank, Tidal Flans, <br /> Buffer Zone to Fare Species Habitat (Priority and Estimated NHF.sP . - Land <br /> Containing Shellfish. <br /> Attorney Brian Wall, representing the Applicant, stated this hearing was continued to this <br /> evening to allow time for the Applicant t retain structural engineer' and submit <br /> information to the Commission that the bridge will withstand storm events. The engineer <br /> has not yet provided them with the information requested, Attorney Wall said he Will also <br /> be asking for a continuance because he has not had an opportunity to review the letter <br /> submitted by the Tribe's Consultant, Horsley and Witten of SandWi h. He said he <br /> understands that the Commission is considering hiring a peer review at the expense of <br /> the Applicant to review the project.- Although he requests a continuance of the hearing, <br /> Attorney Wall asked if the board would address the peer review component. <br /> At a previous meeting, the Commission discussed hiring an outside consultant under <br /> M.G.L. 44 Section 53G, which the Agent cigre6s the Commission needs to consider. He <br /> also recommended the Commissioners give the abutters' the opportunity to present their <br /> concerns tonight. Once than is completed,the Commissioners could decide how they want <br /> to proceed in the natter of hiring an outside consultant. <br /> Mr. Gurnee emphasized issues regarding land ownership are not Conservation issues. <br /> He said that Conservation issues are regulated resource areas and ghat the Commission <br /> can do to protect those resource areas within the performance standards. . He wanted to <br /> make sure focus is on ghat Conservation deals with and let the attorneys deal with other <br /> issues that are germane to the project. <br /> Amy Ball, Horsley and Witten, spoke on behalf of the Wampanoag Tribe. She said they <br /> believe that this project is not approvable and should be denied. There are numerous <br /> documents that have brought into question the property ownership and whether or not the <br /> project is w te'rdependent. This is a critical point for the Commission to consider because <br /> it changes the standards by which a project is reviewed. The standards for ar grater <br /> dependent project are relayed to the point that an Applicant does the best he-can and <br /> does the minimum required to protect the interest. If it is-.not considered a waterdependent <br /> project, the standard gets elevated to a no adverse impact. -FIs. Ball said that she believes <br /> that the Applicants have not demonstrated that the project will have no adverse impact. <br /> The Tribe's interest is specific to land containing shellfish. The Tribe has a private grant <br /> to harvest shellfish in the area and is concerned that a private bridge crossing a channel <br /> and traversing a shellfish area would have an adverse effect. Ms. Pall pointed out that <br /> this project site has a wetlands restriction order which is not being addressed. The Tribe <br /> . 2 <br />