Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Gurnee asked if anyone can document hover r u h shellfish has been taken out from <br /> under the bridge. George Green said the Tribe was not prepared at this time to address <br /> this question. Mr. Tilden said leaving aside that question, the Tribe has exclusive rights <br /> to the use of that area. Ms. Little Doe-Baird said she fishes the area and takes children <br /> there regularly. Children and families fish the area and they do not typically take counts. <br /> The Agent said it is the Commission's choice,as to whether they want to invoke o. 44 <br /> 3G and hire an outside consultant or make a decision on the project right now. He said <br /> he felt in reading both reports from Horsey and Witten and Tetra Tech and the claim that <br /> this project is water dependent doesn't meet the definition of water dependent under the <br /> rulatiorns. The project does not serve any public purpose and under the regulations, it <br /> is not water dependent. Due to impacts to the shellfish and aquaculture grant area, the <br /> letter from the Division of Marine Fisheries has deemed this to be viable shellfish habitat <br /> and made their re on�mendartions that they do not approve of this project. <br /> The Agent noted there are some other issues. One is that the Application doesn't have <br /> the box checked off under resource areas for bordering vegetated wetlands which is <br /> procedural matter that needs to be addressed. Another issue is the 310CMR 10.05 <br /> procedures section C .and G. He cited this regulation. Two values protected under the <br /> bylaw are recreational uses and aquaculture. There is some misinformation and missing <br /> information. He stated it is up to the Commission to decide to continue and hire an outside <br /> consultant or to deny the Application. <br /> Mr. Gurnee referred to the report from Horsley and Witten and to the water dependency. <br /> issue. He reiterated that it is a legal issue, not ar Conservation issue. The Commission <br /> also has to decide if the proposal will have an adverse impact. It is necessary to get ar <br /> better understanding of what DEP's understanding is regarding adverse impact as well as <br /> a better understanding of waterdependency. There was a discussion on water dependent <br /> and non-water dependent. <br /> Attorney Brian J. v all explained the Applicant did appear before the Zoning Board of <br /> Appeals BA for an Application for ar single f roily dwelling without a bridge being <br /> proposed. The ZBA denied the Application on public safety grounds and required <br /> provision of vehicular access to the island. He then spoke about whether it is water <br /> dependent or non-water dependent. He said if it is water dependent, the Applicant is <br /> k required to use the,best available methods to reduce impacts to the resource areas. If it <br /> is not water dependent, the Applicant has to meet the standard of no adverse effc t-to <br /> shellfish, shellfish h bit t and land containing shellfish. He reminded the Commission <br /> they are here tonight to approve or deny the request for a continuance. <br /> Following a discussion on water dependent use and adverse impact, the Commissioners <br /> decided to hire an independent consultant to carefully go over the documentation and <br /> render his opinion of those items. Mr. wall said the Applicant understands the Board has <br /> the right to hire an outside consultant at the Applicant's expense. <br /> The Agent said It would be his recommendation to hire an outside consultant. <br /> Mr. Fitzpatrick also noted the comments of the Division of Marine Fisheries and its <br /> opposition to the project. <br /> 4 <br /> 4 <br />