Laserfiche WebLink
Design and Plan Review will consider the request on December 20, the Planning Board will review the <br />Modification at the December 21 meeting. Mr. Fudala noted that the Historic District Commission <br />may have concerns regarding the change of windows from double hung. Mr. Murner will address <br />concerns with their effort to achieve a barn -like look. The Historic District Commission will plan to <br />meet prior to the Planning Board's meeting. <br />Re -vegetation plan for Windchime Point Red Cedar Road circle <br />Mr. Fudala confirmed that he had been in receipt of an email with attached photos and confirmed that <br />the holes had been filled and the stumps ground down this week. The Chair recommended that an <br />email be sent that the Board was happy with the completed work but still needed a more detailed plan. <br />RELEASE OF COVENANT <br />Release of Road Covenant on 35 Fox Hill Road in exchange for cash performance <br />guarantee <br />Mr. Fudala reported that a proposed amount of $15,000 had been received from builder/owner Bob <br />Bevilaqua, who also planned to complete the work. Mr. Fudala will forward the information to Mr. <br />Rowley to be considered at the next meeting. There was discussion as to whether or not Mr. Bevilaqua <br />had experience completing road work. <br />DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN <br />Status of construction schedule for BCDM / Ockway Highlands road work <br />Mr. Fudala noted that there had initially been discussion between Mr. Haney and residents regarding a <br />plan to prepare the road for winter. It was suggested that Mr. Haney and the neighbors be invited to <br />attend the next meeting on December 21. <br />BOARD ITEMS <br />New Business <br />Conservation Agent Andrew McManus re: 50 ft, zoning setback from water and <br />wetlands -Mr. McManus was present to understand the Board's position regarding the proposed zoning <br />change. Mr. Fudala summarized the current bylaw and the proposed change. Mr. McManus shared his <br />thoughts regarding the bylaw, including feedback from residents required to pursue dual permitting <br />from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission for the same exact project. Mr. <br />McManus has found that, unofficially, the ZBA has requested residents to first be heard by ConCom <br />and then, once addressed by ZBA, were asked only whether or not the project was approved by <br />ConCom, approving the project if so. Mr. McManus indicated that, although the Planning Board <br />expressed concern about a decrease in oversight by eliminating language in the bylaw, there seemed to <br />be no evidence that the ZBA was vetting the projects. As a result, W. McManus felt that there was no <br />value in dual permitting if only one board was pursuing the proper vetting process. Mr. McManus <br />questioned why the ZBA would review the project if they did not further investigate or question the <br />project. <br />The Chair inquired about the number of cases reviewed each year that fell under the bylaw. Mr. <br />McManus responded that it was a substantial number of projects, possibly over 70% of ConCom <br />Notices of Intent. At present, dual acceptance was required for the project to move forward and if not <br />approved by both, the case could be appealed to DEP (for wetlands) or Superior Court (for zoning). <br />The Chair stated that a variance should not be issued unless there was an odd shaped lot or physical <br />hardship. Mr. Fudala stated that ZBA should be applying criteria in the Zoning Act related to <br />hardship, not biological issues. The Chair added that they should not be defaulting to the ConCom <br />decision. The Chair stated that she wished to review the last four examples of projects that had been <br />OA <br />