1/10/1991 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT COMMITTEE Minutes

Home Browse Search

Conservation Cormmisison is-muar r 10, 1991 Wage 4. Mr. Buckley explained the revisions. Mrs. Lynch commented the five foot width looks like an average bath tub. She asked why she had not received notification of this hearing and the policy on continued hearings was explained by Mrs. Simons. Mrs. Lynch asked what would happen if the pool were put in differently from the plan? Mr. Sherman advised if a significant change from the plan an Enforcement order would be issued. A violation would possibly not be noted until inspection for a Certificate of Compliance. James Rantuccio, an abutter, asked if a 6 foot high fence is required for. the pool and does that fence require a 40 foot setback? Mr. Buckley advised some fences are right on the property line. CONTINUED TO JAMARY 241, 1991 - 8:45 .M. :49 NW SAY CO., Dots 1377 and '1378 Shore Drive, Continued from December 27. Mr. Grotke gage a letter to Mr. Sherman on the combining of two lots. By putting the house on the lot line, it becomes one lot. He asked how the board washed to handle this? Eros, his point of view, land court is a lengthy time to go and .ray confuse things already in process. He suggested the same plan be referenced for both Notices of intent and two Orders of Conditions issued. Mr. Sherman advised D.B.P. weld prefer to have only one number on the lot. Town Counsel felt it would be legal to issue two separate orders since two Notices of Intent were filed but that is not the preference of D.E.P. it will need approval of the planning board to make it one 1 t. He will fax this information to Town Counsel and would expect to have an answer by Tuesday. He pointed out that stamps will be necessary on the plans and Mr. Grotke agreed, ONTI [,TSD TO . Al C A Y 17, 1991 -- 8:30 p.m. 7:00 MV SFABM CO,,- Lily Pond, continued hearing. CONTINUED TO JF 21, 1991 - 7:45 p.m. LOT 1379: Mr. Sherman advised, upon his return From vacation, the order of Conditions for Lot 1379 was about to be typed for issuance. He requested it be held for dis- cussion as he had several questions thinking the Commission had the usual 21 days to issue. It is a sensitive issue with a legal dispute. New Seabury did not call to ask for it but went forward with restoring the dune on 1379. This is the lot where Mr. McNamara has McGregor, Doliner & Shea involved in the access issue and they are on the verge of an appeal. This is a technical viol- tion. Atty, Glen wood has asked us to stop all work. Mr. Sherman suggested asking Mr. Grotzke to sign a waiver for the 21 day limit on the release of the order of Conditions and give a stay on the execution until resolved. Mr. Grotzke agreed, as long as the Commission sloes not fine him. Mr. Sherman stated that itwoul.d be inappropriate to issue a fine. Mrs. Sons read from the minutes of the hearing wherein Nor. Gror ke had stated it aright be worth the risk of an appeal to go forward and put the sand in. It would be to their benefit not to do anything else, in lieu of the suit.