Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compliance And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Doty Avenue compliance application continued after commission seeks mitigation and enforcement options
Summary
A certificate of compliance request for 35 Doty Ave was continued to allow the applicant to address unauthorized work near vegetated wetlands, including a sporting court and oversized float; staff and commissioners discussed mitigation steps and possible enforcement orders.
The Conservation Commission continued a certificate of compliance request for 35 Doty Avenue (DEP file 14‑0883) after representatives said they had added a pollinator garden and shrub bed but planned to withdraw the application for the pier and file an after‑the‑fact notice of intent for the float.
Bob Griffin, representing Edward and Elizabeth Doherty, described mitigation already completed: a new pollinator garden near the garage and a roughly 375‑square‑foot upland shrub bed planted with bird‑friendly shrubs such as inkberry and winterberry. Griffin said the float currently on site is larger than originally permitted; he advised withdrawing the certificate application for that portion and filing a new notice of intent to regularize the float’s size.
Commission members raised concerns about a sports court (paver area) within the regulated limit and asked the applicant to consider removing or reducing it to a more natural state. “I’d much rather see that return to a quote, unquote natural state,” one commissioner said, citing the risk the area could be later used for storage or additional impervious structures. The representative said the court is pavers and a stone masonry wall and that removal would be significant but that he would discuss it with the owner.
Commission counsel and staff discussed enforcement mechanisms to ensure mitigation work is completed. Staff suggested options including issuing an enforcement order requiring installation of the shrubs, removal of the sports court, and the pollinator garden; commissioners discussed whether an enforcement order requires prior finding of violation and whether it would be appropriate now or reserved as a last resort. Staff agreed to research the enforcement process and provide guidance.
The commission voted to continue the matter to the next scheduled hearing (September 25) to allow the applicant time to respond to the commission’s requested mitigation steps and to allow staff to report back on enforcement procedure. The transcript shows the continuation motion was seconded and carried by recorded “Aye” votes among those present.
