9/8/1988 CONSERVATION COMMISSION Minutes

Home Browse Search

M MAS CN:E;E:F;ZV -rN COMMISSION Commissioners Present: Elliot Rosenberg,enberg, hair na Pro Tex; Carol . ac hson; Joseph Burns; Patrick Coffey ; Mary Marsters. The meeting was called to order at ' = - .m. Bob [3-.jrSmann Of f101meS & McGrathstated at the last me et i re , we were looking at a Certificate of Compliance for the road construction at Bc w y Bay Road and Ue s {i.5n- +ata ra i o:� w - i the ha:l al l s-. placed v - .t the end of the drainage pipe off the end o the roadway ' e'' i i'nal Orden o f Cond i ti ons issue d had requested a separate f i I i g be Made for � the headwall even though the ea all & a s were shown o the plans submitted at the time the road. construction was approved by theComm- ission. The contractor, making no e u �� him, -went ahead and did the headwalls without making a filing. The headwalls were constructed differently than shown on plans prepared by his office. As-built drawings were f'i est with a request -to amend the Order.. and issue a Certificate o - Compliance with -the headwalls In the configuration that they now exist. 'odd Pal atier informed Frim the commission wanted more detail as to how the headwalls case to be in the .c' nfi.,S -r a t-ion.,. ;;.'. Y are in now. -e talked too the owner of the property t. :et e r e_:, - a.'_ back round and is here to offer the explanation o t the fact that--'-.--.the: design for the headwall wa5 dictated to the- con-tractor constr -tI,- & .4 e roadway by, Charles Rowley in h is capacity- as errgeer =-� : planning board. He had felt, rightly or wrongly, that t-h d ai1�-'t* at, e had on the plan we prepared for the headwall. was not a- tie-,'.an . e ordered the contractor to construct the headwall in a t# ick r con- f ig rion so the headwall is a broader depth of concrete. at. the:.,erred- of the pipe than shown on their detailed plan. The reason t ': sin was chapged was at the ,instruction of Ctar,"Les Rowley acting in i- ca ac of consultant to the Planning Board. Mfr . Rosenberg noted from the last meeting a request from Mrs, Marsters that there be a let-ter from the engineer describing the dif eren . Mr. stated that was not communicated t.o him. Mr. os nr•g sugsested a letter be pro filer# stating h reasoner .1-d # scribing the changes made at the recommendation of the Town Engineer and have him endorse the letter to complete the file. The Commission agreed as well as Mr. Burgmann. He advised the revised as built. eras.-_- n the files. This is to be moved on at the next aeeti g. -- org .. IL th l � - a proposed ,_ head along the shore of a-ml in' s Pond at Lots 9 & 10 MonomoscoyRoad West. Mrs . Marsters stood down- for this hearing. Abutter rec-ei ts- sa p 'es*ent d* Dave Sarich i presenting. '11heip a're. ro. ��*iu h - t � � t re �• �:.�� ;� ��r� .ir��e a�'� c:�;�. tin ; � � I .1 o"d telephone pales are s zjn on the plan with dotted line which have been maintained for some time but are deteriorating and erosion is coming from the- back- side. a - sid . He showed a land c urt plan or 1967 showing -the shoreline. They are not asking tog o b,3 o g a t. i, s 'shown ort the ' lay only trying to maintain the shore line. It is in Flood Zone. A14, elevation. .12 which is 81 over the top of this bulkhead which is not constructed for any purposes with reference to a flood situation, the water is going to come over it. At tete Board o w��;��.�� s, the Shellfish Warden voiced positi e approval f the plan . e awse the shore is a sand sit- u at i on , i i s covering the s e.l f i t�� .�� ; � s i l WaI tain the