7/26/2018 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

opposition to the Notice of Intent application for the construction of a bridge. She said upon review of the new ANRAD, they have concerns specifically HW has compared this plan with the description of existing conditions and project plans submitted previously. She presented a letter from HW dated July 26, 2018. She noted the discrepancies on the proposed plan. She said ANRAD is a planning tool for future development. She said HW has identified a number of discrepancies in this ANRAD filing that they believe require further scrutiny prior to the approval under an ORAD. She recommended that the Commission seek additional input from the applicant and/or from an outside source to ensure that the existing conditions are accurate prior to rendering a decision. Given the past history of the site, the Commission would want to have the resource area boundaries carefully reviewed at this site. She said it may be prudent for the Commission to seek a third party review for this ANRAD under MGL Chapter 44, section 53G The Chair stated comments were made to previous hearings and it is not within the scope of the Commission to revisit any of these events. He said in his opinion there is some reasonable level of accuracy with contour lines. His inclination is to go with the recommendation of the Agent. The Agent reiterated the two other resource areas land under ocean and land containing shellfish can be conditioned that they are present. He said it is a straightforward application and the differences can be discussed tonight with the expertise of the people here tonight. Amy Ball stated the tribe has not had time for a thorough review. She said in looking at three plans finding discrepancies is enough for the Commissioners to question why the conditions have changed on this property. Tom Bunker explained the data has been gathered over a number of years and how they came to their conclusions. He reviewed the survey data. The Agent noted he didn’t see any disturbance except where there was a soil percolation test done where there was some vegetation disturbance. He did notice that there was some area that could be considered coastal dune but it is grown over with a lot of shrubbery and grass so it could be considered salt marsh. There has been some change on the island but by and large it looked the same as the last time he walked around it. Nothing stood out as a major change. Mr. Wolpe, abutter to island, stated given the history, he thinks it is critical the town and the taxpayers get it right in the development of Gooseberry Island. He noted he has spent a lot of money defending Gooseberry Island and the water around it. He said we should get this right and have an independent surveyor question Mr. Bunker’s work. He asked why is this an abbreviated filing? He said it is important enough to have an independent surveyor check Mr. Bunker’s work because he feels like this is being pushed through. The Chair noted this is a sensitive issue but he reminded everyone this is a relatively simple application and we need to act on it according to the rules and regulations. He said it doesn’t appear to have a substantial difference in the deviation by the two sides. David Weedon asked if it would be cost effective to request a lidar and if the board would consider that. He said there is a lot of coastal data in a lidar. Mr. Bunker said he doesn’t know if that technology is available. Mr. Wolpe spoke about the March storm and said he submitted videos of the damage of the storm and would hope the Commissioners would take a look at it. George Chuckie Greene, Director of Natural Resources for the Wampanoag Tribe, stated it seems like we are moving fast and if there are questions he thinks they should be answered before we proceed. We know there is shellfish there and should be a part of what we are looking at and we should be clear. He said he knows something about by lidar and it sounds like a possible solution to clarify everything.