Laserfiche WebLink
M A S>q H C 0 NS FRVA-IF I C3 N 0 0 MM I ' N <br /> lT AAFY 2 1 , 8 8 <br /> Commissioners Pr-esent: V. L. Behrman, Gertrude rr i day , ,Joseph Burns , <br /> Carol Jacobson , Elliot Roenberg. i <br /> Patrick o fey, Associate Member and Lisa Hanscom, Conservation Agent, <br /> were present also. <br /> Mrs. Ferriday- reported they met with the. Cranberry growers on Wednes- <br /> day. It was agreed to drop the 1988 contract price to % per barrel <br /> which is a % increase in their profit based on this year. <br /> The growers will be asked to provide documentation of costs prior to <br /> future' reviews. <br /> It was suggested Town Counsel look into the two years they acid not � <br /> . grow., Concerning competitive bidding on the contract, this is the <br /> fourth year of a ten year lease. <br /> MOTE: Motion made and seconded to present the letter of committee rec- <br /> ommendations concerning the cranberry bogs to the Selectmen. <br /> A paragraph was omitted from the bylaw re agricultural uses in the <br /> newspaper act. This will be amended from the floor at town meeting. <br /> X <br /> A verbal opinion. received from Town Counsel is that the Board of <br /> Appeals decision in the Baf ro case is in a suspended state until such <br /> time as there is a court decision rendered. <br /> Kevin Kirane has been informed and has requested the hearing be con- <br /> tinued until February 11 at 8: 00. <br /> X <br /> Lundgren - S -- 76, " Cert i i cat.e of Compliance was requesteJ. <br /> Lisa advised the house is positioned correctly on the plan but there <br /> is a very large retaining wall and stairway not on the plant which had <br /> not gorse through the Building Inspector also. <br /> Mr. Lundgren stated the retaining mall is five feet and John Varkonda <br /> had agreed the retaining mall would control the erosion. <br /> Ms Behrman stated this should be documented in writing with permission <br /> from the Board. T-h i s wall would require a Notice o f Intent . There is a <br /> discrepancy with what is on the plan and what is permitted which is a <br /> cloud on the title . There is no variation in grade noted and nothing <br /> about emplaced fill . <br /> Mr . Rosenberg stated . the building marked elevation i s 94 and a wall as <br /> drawn in on this plan goes down tb the 80 ft. line , if the ground be- <br /> hind the wall is at 94 then there is 12 feet of fill . Mr . Lundgren dis- <br /> agr ed. Mr. Rosenberg continued , this is why ars Engineer ' s plan is re- <br />